Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

Ordered,

That the Bill be committed in respect of Clauses Nos. 2, 4, 6, 12 to 14, 17 and 18, 26, 27, 33, 34 and 36 and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto.

Ordered,

That notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of Standing Order 111 (Reference to committees of opposed and unopposed bills), the Committee of Selection shall treat the Bill as an opposed Bill.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL (By Order)

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL (By
Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 19 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Museums (Allocations)

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to announce the allocations for Northern Ireland museums for 1987–88.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement that I made on 5 March 1987. The total museums' recurrent grant for 1987–88 has increased by over 8 per cent. to £4·3 million and both purchase grants and capital works allocations have been substantially increased. Further details are available in the Library.

Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us will welcome this increased funding and particularly his announcement about the business sponsorship scheme? Will money from the scheme be available to help museums?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words and welcome. I believe that the £100,000 which

I was able to announce for the scheme has been welcomed by those in the arts world and those in the museums world. I can confirm that the money will be available to the museums.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Does the Minister intend to establish a maritime museum at Harland and Wolff? If he does not, will he explain what this year's £64 million of subvention to Harland and Wolff is for?

Dr. Mawhinney: So far as I am aware, I do not have any direct responsibility for establishing museums.

Community Relations

Mr. Favell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what role the churches play with the Government in seeking to promote good community relations in the Province.

Dr. Mawhinney: The churches are involved in various education and community work programmes for which they receive Government funding.

Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend ask the churches how we can unite the communities in Northern Ireland so long as the schoolchildren are segregated?

Dr. Mawhinney: The tradition of church schools is well established. It commands a degree of appreciation by people who live in Northern Ireland. The Government seek to run an education service which is, as far as possible, responsive to parents' wishes, subject, of course, to acceptable academic standards.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the role of the churches in Northern Ireland, and, one would hope, of churches elsewhere in the United Kingdom and throughout the world, is far wider than merely to promote good community relations? Surely their job is to preach the gospel, administer the sacraments and to do all the things to make Christian communities.

Dr. Mawhinney: As a fellow member of the Synod, my hon. Friend will know that I entirely agree with him and share his views on that. Nevertheless, the churches also have a responsibility to contribute to good community relations. I hope that we can advance along that line, at least in terms of community work. The churches should be able to work together without any theological compromise.

Ms. Clare Short: Does the Minister agree that it confuses the debate to think that the problems of Northern Ireland arise from a difference about religion? Does he agree that it arises from a difference about who controls that statelet, the domination that they have over others and the widespread discrimination? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it confuses the whole debate for people to suggest that all the trouble in Northern Ireland is because of different religious views?

Dr. Mawhinney: I know that the hon. Lady will understand when I say that I do not accept the designation of an integral part of the United Kingdom as a "statelet". I recognise, as does the hon. Lady, that a variety of pressures contribute to the difficulties in the Province. It would be hard to argue against the point that religion has had and continues to have a role to play as one of the factors. The Government have to bear that in mind in terms of seeking not only to endorse the principle of good


community relations, but in seeking to advance that with, as far as possible, the co-operation of the people and organisations in the Province.

Mr. Leigh: Following the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the inalienable right of everybody in this country of all faiths, or no faith, to educate his children in a denominational school of his choice?

Dr. Mawhinney: I think that I have essentially answered that question in the affirmative in the first reply that I gave.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland concerning the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I met the last Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland on many occasions, most recently at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 8 December. I look forward to meeting his successor.

Mr. Archer: I thank the Secretary of State for that unsurprising answer, but may I ask him whether, when he meets Mr. Lenihan, he will extend good wishes from all parts of the House to him on his difficult but challenging task? Will the Secretary of State also send affectionate valedictions to the retiring Taoiseach? If Mr. Lenihan should inquire of the Secretary of State how the Intergovernmental Conference can best help in improving daily life, in reconciling people and in finding areas of agreement, will he be ready with a list of topics, and what will be in that list?

Mr. King: On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point, I refer him to the communiqués which show a continuing programme of work and, obviously, we look forward to continuing it. I certainly join him in the courteous welcome that he gave on behalf of hon. Members to the new Foreign Minister, Mr. Lenihan. We look forward to confirmation about whether he will be the co-chairman of the Anglo-Irish conference. I have already sent valedictory messages of goodwill to the former Taoiseach and to the former Foreign Minister.

Mr. Benyon: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Foreign Minister to the large number of unemployed families coming to this country from the Republic? This is causing considerable strain on our services. Will my right hon. Friend point out that this shows the mutual interest that both countries have in achieving prosperity in the south of Ireland?

Mr. King: It would not be interference in the affairs of a foreign country to say that we were all aware of the great concern during the election campaign over the issues of unemployment and emigration. Quite clearly, that is an illustration of aspects in which we have a clear interest, because a number of people who have emigrated from the Republic of Ireland are in this country.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What odds on the implementation of the European convention against terrorism by the Irish Republic is the Secretary of State now prepared to offer?

Mr. King: I do not think that betting is permitted in this Chamber. I note that the measures to enable the

convention to be ratified have passed through both Houses in the Republic of Ireland and will come into effect on 1 December.

Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was negotiated between two sovereign states, and that any question of changing the agreement would also involve the British Government? Certainly, it cannot unilaterally be done by an incoming Irish Government.

Mr. King: The point at issue is that if either party wishes to raise matters in connection with the agreement that is provided for in the agreement in relation to the operation of the conference. I note that Mr. Haughey was reported in an interview published in The Irish Times on 7 March as saying that he accepted that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was an accord that had been entered into by an Irish Government and therefore had to be accepted as binding.

Mr. Skinner: In his discussions did the Secretary of State mention that a recent poll in the Daily Express said that more than 60 per cent. of the British people want to see the troops out of Northern Ireland? Although not many hon. Members voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement when it went through the House, if the Secretary of State has kept his eyes and ears open he will have noticed that a growing number of hon. Members are against that agreement because, like all its predecessors, it is bound to fail.

Mr. King: I had not appreciated before how strongly the hon. Gentleman is against the agreement. There must be more to it than I realised, and that gives me some real comfort. In the poll in the Daily Express, the question was "over a period", and a considerable number of people would hope to see an improvement in security that would enable the withdrawal of significant numbers of the British Army over a period.

Taoiseach (Talks)

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet the new Taoiseach to discuss the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet the new Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland to discuss Anglo-Irish relations.

Mr. Tom King: I know that the House will join me in congratulating Mr. Haughey on his election as Taoiseach. Although I have no plans at present to meet Mr. Haughey, I look forward to doing so before long.

Mr. Silvester: If Her Majesty's Government are to sustain their policy on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, is it not of great importance that we have urgent talks with the Taoiseach to see whether the continuity of the Republic's policy is sustained?

Mr. King: I accept that. The reality which is reflected in the Anglo-Irish Agreement is still valid. All the evidence of the damage that is being done by terrorism in Northern Ireland, in terms of physical outrage and terror and in terms of economic damage to the Republic, make it clearly of mutual interest to both our countries that there is the most vigorous possible attack against terrorism.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not right that when Mr. Haughey was leader of the Opposition in the Republic he had grave


reservations about the Anglo-Irish Agreement and made them obvious in the Dail? Does the Secretary of State remember that in particular he had reservations about what is called the veto of the majority of Northern Ireland? When he sees Mr. Haughey, will he explore this issue?

Mr. King: No. I make it clear that I note the comments that Mr. Haughey made to the political editor of The Irish Times, in which he accepted that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was an accord, and therefore had to be accepted as binding because it had been entered into by an Irish Government. I also note that he said:
We will endeavour to contribute to the restoration of peace and stability in Northern Ireland in any way which may appear possible and feasible.
If that is correctly reported, I welcome that statement, and I hope that we can have an encouraging and productive working relationship.

Viscount Cranborne: How many items typically did the last Irish premier put on the agenda of the conference? Does my right hon. Friend intend to raise this question with the new Prime Minister and does he expect that number to increase?

Mr. King: I do not know whether I fully grasp the point of my hon. Friend's question. The items that we have discussed are in the communiqués and I expect that programme of work to continue.

Mr. Alton: Is it not the case that the one thing that unites extreme opinion on both sides of the Irish sea is opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and that anything that is done to dilute the commitment of the House or the Dail to the agreement would be playing into the hands of extremist opinion? Is not one of the best things that could happen for progress to be made on the creation of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier, which was envisaged in the signing of the original Hillsborough report?

Mr. King: The hon. Member knows that that matter is more for hon. Members and the House than for me. I see the merits in it. There is no question but that the most violent opposition of all to the Anglo-Irish Agreement comes from the IRA.

Mr. Gow: When it becomes clear to my right hon. Friend that the Anglo-Irish Agreement cannot achieve its declared purpose of peace, stability and reconciliation, will my right hon. Friend propose to the Irish Government a renegotiation of that agreement?

Mr. King: I hope that I have made clear to the House my commitment to the agreement and my belief that it offers the best prospect for a way forward in the difficult problems of Northern Ireland. I do not seek a renegotiation of it.

Community Relations Policy

Mr. Stern: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when his Department last reviewed its community relations policy; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am currently reviewing the community policy for which my Department has a statutory responsibility.

Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome this review, and will urge him to continue to take a lead on the matter?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his encouragement. The Government recognise that it is important to do all that lies within their power to promote good community relations. That is the end that I should like to see achieved as a consequence of the review.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister realise that one of the matters that is disturbing community relations in Northern Ireland concerns the extremely serious allegations being made by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in Northern Ireland, myself and other persons, against RUC officers, civilian employees of the RUC arid solicitors, who are alleged to be involved in an immigration racket? Why has the RUC detective at the centre of these allegations not been suspended while inquiries are made? When will Mr. Chan Hok-Chun, a victim of this immigration racket, be allowed to return to London and rejoin his wife? He is now in detention in Belfast. When will the Minister bust this immigration racket, about which I told him in January and February this year?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am not at all clear what that question has to do with my responsibilities for community relations. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he has written to me in that capacity, I shall have to ask my Department what has happened to his letter. If, on the other hand, he has not written to me in my community relations role, which is what I understood him to say, then no doubt, if he feels so strongly, he will write to me.

Ulster Defence Regiment (Coleraine Headquarters)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has completed his investigation into the raid on the local Ulster Defence Regiment headquarters in Coleraine, Co. Derry on 22 February; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tom King: RUC investigations into the raid are continuing. Four men have been charged with serious offences; two are part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I understand that the Ministry of Defence has convened its own internal board of inquiry, which has reported its findings and those are now being studied. A review of security at all UDR bases and establishments is being carried out. In the meantime, the Ministry of Defence has put into effect a number of measures to improve security at the Coleraine UDR base.

Mr. Duffy: Does the Secretary of State recall the concern that has repeatedly been expressed in the House about the role and integrity of the UDR? What reassurance does he envisage offering to hon. Member's when a Loyalist gang can still get into UDR barracks, round up the entire arsenal, load it into a UDR vehicle, and get away, but for the RUC?

Mr. King: The answer to that is on the basis of information that was provided by a UDR member. As the House may know, I take an extremely serious view of this incident, which could have had the gravest consequences. I pay tribute to the action of the RUC, which so quickly repossessed a substantial number of weapons and an


amount of ammunition. Obviously, this is a matter of great concern. I do not wish to anticipate the outcome of the inquiry, but that is a matter which the UDR takes very seriously..

ACE Project

Ms. Clare Short: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what conditions are imposed by the European Community on the use of community funds for ACE projects.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The European Community does not impose any specific conditions on ACE projects in Northern Ireland. The entire Northern Ireland ACE programme qualifies for support from the European social fund on the basis that it meets the eligibility criteria laid down in the social fund guidelines.

Ms. Clare Short: It seems from that answer that the six ACE workers at St. Mathew's, who were so wrongly threatened with dismissal on unspecified security grounds—which led to the closure of the only Irish language nursery in Northern Ireland—have no hope of justice from the EEC. Has the Minister, since the issue was last raised, looked into the threatened closure of that project and can he give us any more welcome news today?

Mr. Scott: The decision was made in compliance with the terms of the answer, with which the hon. Lady will be familiar, by my right hon.Friend the Home Secretary when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. On at least one occasion where a grant had been denied on the basis of that parliamentary answer, it was possible for the organisation concerned so to reorganise its affairs that ultimately it became eligible for grant.

Mr. Archer: Does the Minister of State appreciate that the withdrawal of funding, without assigning any reason which can be challenged or argued, can have a devastating effect on the community and on the employees, and that it can operate unjustly. Does he realise that there is a genuine problem which should be discussed?

Mr. Scott: Certainly, as has been shown in the past, we are willing to discuss these matters, but the terms of my right hon. Friend's parliamentary answer, that it is important that where public funds are concerned there should be minimal risk of those funds ending up in the hands of paramilitary organisations, is a principle with which the House will agree.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have taken place with the newly elected Government of the Irish Republic regarding the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Tom King: There have not yet been any discussions with the new Irish Government, but we look forward to full co-operation with them in operating the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Winnick: The Anglo-Irish Agreement was not apparently an issue in the recent Irish elections, but would it not be true to say from surveys and various opinion polls that that agreement has as much broadly based support in the Irish Republic as it certainly has in the United

Kingdom? Bearing in mind that the Provisional Sinn Fein received less than 2 per cent. of the vote in the Irish election, where is its mandate, can I ask, as I asked the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) and his colleagues in Northern Ireland directly in 1983, for the continuing campaign of killings and terrorism by the Provisional IRA? How can that organisation say that it is acting in the traditions of 1798 and 1916 with a mandate from the Irish people?

Mr. King: I rarely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says in the House, but I entirely endorse and applaud what he has just said. Whatever views and judgments one draws from the outcome of the election in the Republic, the one absolutely clear conclusion to be drawn from the humiliating derisory vote for Sinn Fein is that it represents nobody in what it claims to be its attempt to represent some great Irish aspiration. That development was most encouraging and it completely removes any conceivable justification, were there ever to be one, for its intolerable campaign of violence in the north.

Mr. Stanbrook: What specific benefits does my right hon. Friend claim have accrued to Northern Ireland since the conclusion of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Mr. King: There certainly have been benefits, as was shown in the by-elections, for a start. Part of the concern of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is not merely that the majority, but the minority, should feel that their traditions and aspirations are respected. Anybody, above all Unionists, who cares about Northern Ireland must be concerned about the attitude of the minority, not just that of the majority. The most significant single factor was, perhaps, in the early stage, the significant switch of voting from Sinn Fein to the constitutional democratic parties.

Mr. Mason: Further to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I hope that the Secretary of State will discuss with the Taoiseach the fact that people in the north have now become wise to the Provisional Sinn Fein's bomb and bullet campaign? Will he also note that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) is scurrying around Britain trying to rally support for his party? The Provisional Sinn Fein got a black eye in the southern Republican elections and I hope that the Secretary of State and the Taoiseach will now raise their profile politically and defeat the Provisional Sinn Fein still further.

Mr. King: I certainly would like to see that happen and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. It is undoubtedly true that, as I said earlier, while the IRA may conduct its violence in the north, the violent damage that it does to the economy of the south is all too clear, and it is the godfather of the appalling unemployment level through the island of Ireland.

Mr. Cormack: Before, quite properly, seeking to establish relations with the new Government, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to thank Dr. FitzGerald for what he did during his period of leadership of his party and his country?

Mr. King: I think that the whole House will have noted the universal tributes that have been paid throughout the British press following the announcement, by Dr. FitzGerald, of his retirement from the leadership of Fine Gael. I would certainly like to put on record the admiration and respect of myself, my colleagues serving in


the Northern Ireland Office, and indeed, the House for someone who has been an outstanding representative of this country.

Mr. Bell: In relation to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North, (Mr. Winnick), the response given by the Secretary of State, and given the rather peculiar attitude and outburst of some members of the Government Back Benches, can it be made clear that, at all times in the past and at all times in the future, a Labour Administration and a Labour Opposition condemn, totally and outrightly, the use of the ballot paper in the one hand and the Armalite in the other? This House associates itself absolutely and categorically with the total condemnation of Provisional Sinn Fein and states that the only route for those in Northern Ireland in the majority and minority communities is that of constitutional nationalism. That must be in the interests of all the people of the island of Ireland.

Mr. King: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way he has spoken with the authority of the Front Bench on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends. I believe that the firmness of the House in the rejection of violence and terrorism are reinforced by events, especially the derisory vote for Sinn Fein. That shows that we are absolutely right in our determination to stand against it.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement with specific reference to cross-border co-operation on security.

Mr. Scott: Progress has been made since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in developing further cross-border security co-operation. There has been increased contact at all levels between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana. The programme of work agreed by the two police forces is now being implemented.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: With regard to security matters and assessing the Anglo-Irish Agreement will not the Parliament of the United Kingdom greatly miss the counsel and border experience of the late Lord Brookeborough? Do we not salute and grieve with the family of the right hon. and noble Viscount?

Mr. Scott: I certainly echo those sentiments and pay tribute to the contribution that Lord Brookeborough made on behalf of his community in Northern Ireland, on behalf of Northern Ireland as a whole, and to the way that he enabled the voice of his beliefs to be heard in this Parliament.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the Anglo-Irish Agreement gravely jeopardised by the unanswered allegations of Wallace and Holroyd? Now that the Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, has said that he intends to carry out an inquiry into the allegations and, in particular, the alleged attempt to destabilise the Government of the Republic in the 1970s, surely the British Government should respond likewise. Surely Parliament is entitled to know whether Mr. Wallace and Mr. Holroyd are lying or whether they are telling the truth?

Mr. Scott: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces said in a parliamentary answer the other day, there has been no evidence whatsoever advanced in support of the allegations made by Messrs. Holroyd and Wallace.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the expression of appreciation to the outgoing Prime Minister, does he not agree with me that that man has stood out among his contemporary rivals as the only real statesman among them?

Mr. Scott: I will not get into that territory, but I certainly echo the compliments that my right hon. Friend paid to Dr. FitzGerald for the role that he has played in Ireland and in the European Community during his time as Taoiseach. Obviously, we look forward to working with whoever is Head of Government in the Irish Republic.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Bell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what recent talks he has had with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland through the Intergovernmental Conference.

Mr. Scott: Our most recent discussions with Irish Government representatives took place at the meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 8 December. The statement issued after the meeting sets out the subjects discussed. A copy has been placed in the Library.

Mr. Bell: Now that the new Government are in place in the Republic can we see to it that an early meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference is convened? Can we also see more economic progress and more economic items on the agenda so that the people of Northern Ireland and the people in the island of Ireland as a whole can see some benefit from the economy improving as a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman knows that we never announce the dates of meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference in advance. It is too early to say when one might be likely to take place. We want the work of the conference to be sustained. We have had some discussions on economic matters already, and I am sure that we shalll continue to do so.

Mr. Wilkinson: In any talks that the Government may have with the new Government of the Republic, will Ministers make it clear that the co-operation of the Republic will be judged by the amount of assistance that is given directly to security forces of Her Majesty's Government in pursuing terrorists, and that we would expect the south to desist from arresting British soldiers who inadvertently stray over the border in the course of their dangerous duties?

Mr. Scott: I am sure that we shall look forward to cross-border co-operation with the new Administration in Dublin. Any Irish Government must understand that the activities of terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland present a threat to democracy throughout the island of Ireland, and they will be as concerned as we are to further develop cross-border co-operation.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to promote the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the Province.

Mr. Tom King: Ministers take every opportunity to explain why the agreement is of benefit to everyone in Northern Ireland, and to remove misapprehensions about it.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer, but he may be aware that there is an impression that since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was passed by the House and by another place with overwhelming majorities, the Government have been inclined to sit on their hands and not go out to the people of Northern Ireland to explain the benefits of the agreement. How many public meetings have he and his Ministers addressed in the Province? What sort of advertising campaign has been carried out? Has an attempt been made to send a leaflet to every household in the north explaining the benefits of the agreement?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions. We do not believe that a massive advertising campaign would be helpful, although we have placed certain advertisements to deal with clear misapprehensions. We have sought to discuss the concerns of political leaders and unfortunately, as my hon. Friend will know, they have felt unwilling to discuss them with us.

Mr. Porter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that advertisements must be based on fact, that it is a fact that over the months since the introduction of the agreement the majority of the population of Northern Ireland has seen little in it, and that, therefore, advertising would do little to promote it?

Mr. King: The agreement will not produce benefits that will lead to instant improvement. We are tackling difficulties and problems that have lasted over decades. I am certain that the population of Northern Ireland, especially the majority community, will regard a real improvement in security as a benefit stemming from the agreement, but my hon. Friend knows well that that is not something that we shall achieve overnight.

Mr. Mason: Is it not true that if the Secretary of State wishes successfully to promote the agreement in the Province, it must be understood that the most crucial aspect of it concerns security, including security for the Province as a whole and border security? What examples can the right hon. Gentleman give to the House or the Taoiseach, when he next meets him, that the agreement has worked in that regard? Can he prove to us that cross-border security has been improved?

Mr. King: Foundations have been laid, undoubtedly, for much closer co-operation. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the joint threat assessment, for the first time ever, agreed between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana, the agreement on the need for close co-operation and the meetings that are taking place between senior police officers and police officers at all levels. There have been a number of individual successes. I accept entirely, however, that there have been outrages committed across the border, and it is our continuing ambition to improve our record in that respect.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been an increase in the campaign of terror, especially by the IRA, and that in 1986, 61 people lost their lives and 1,450 were injured, including 622 policemen? Does he agree that it is most important to bring in more regular border patrols? If there is to be any cross-border incursions, does he agree that there should be give and take on both sides.

Mr. King: I certainly agree with the last point that my hon. Friend raised. On the matter of violence, it is not all IRA violence to which he referred.

Local Councils (Boycott)

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current situation regarding the boycott of local councils by certain members.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I deprecate the actions of some district councillors in Northern Ireland who have failed to discharge their responsibilities to their ratepayers. I very much hope that they will return to the council chamber to represent their constituents. In the meantime, the Government will continue to take such action as is necessary to ensure that essential services and jobs are not put at risk.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I accept and sympathise with the genuine dilemma faced by many Unionist councillors as between their deep loyalty to local government and their commitment to their party. I note that some of them have returned to their duties. Does the Secretary of State accept that it is an interesting point that the apparent solidarity of Unionist representation here does not reflect the differences between different parts of the Unionist cause in the north of Ireland?

Mr. Needham: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, whatever the depth of feeling that Unionist councillors may have, there is no excuse for not looking after their constituents, not attending councils and not abiding by the law of the land.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that if Unionists are as divided as they clearly are in the Province of Northern Ireland, it does not help those of us who would like to see some degree of devolution in local government as well as in the more general political sense in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend. The sooner that Unionist councillors go back to their councils—many of them have done so—the better it will be for everybody.

Foreign Minister of the Republic

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Scott: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to a question by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) earlier today.

Mr. Dubs: In discussions with the Irish Government about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will the Minister make it clear that, although improved security must be an important objective, the nationalist population of the six counties would be let down badly if it were to be seen by them as the only objective? Is he aware that they will quite rightly wish to see further progress in other areas?

Mr. Scott: I agree with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, reassurance of the nationalist community can be a help to the activities of the security forces in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Holt: As part of the Anglo-Irish Agreement includes a £50 million donation to this country from America, will my hon. Friend say whether we have yet received the £50 million, and, if so, how has it been spent?

Mr. Scott: Legislation has been passed to establish the international fund for Ireland, representing both parts of Ireland. The board has already had a number of meetings to consider how the money might most sensibly be disbursed.

Ms. Clare Short: When the Minister meets the Foreign Secretary, might it help to persuade him that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been of some value if he points out that what it has really achieved is to expose the people of Britain to the unreasonableness and intransigence of unionism in Northern Ireland? Will he also point out that, according to the Daily Express poll, a majority of people in Britain want to withdraw from Northern Ireland and that more people in Britain think that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is an evil presence than there are people who think that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) is an evil presence?

Mr. Scott: We so operate the Anglo-Irish Agreement with the Administration in Dublin that the benefits become manifest to all the people in Northern Ireland.

Security

Mr. Spencer: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest security position in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: Since I last reported to the House on 15 January, six people-a major in the Ulster Defence Regiment, a Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve constable and four civilians—have died as a result of the security situation. Three of the civilian deaths are believed to have been as a result of the Irish National Liberation Army feud. The efforts of the security forces are continuing to yield results. Since the beginning of the year, a total of 72 people have beeen charged with serious offences, 47 weapons, 810 rounds of ammunition and 1,617lbs of explosives have been recovered in Northern Ireland. In addition to those finds in Northern Ireland, there was a significant find of arms, ammunition and explosives by the Garda Siochana in the border region on 27 January.

Mr. Spencer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even minor acts of violence by prominent elected figures undermine the position of the security forces and needlessly make their task more difficult?

Mr. King: Certainly I deplore any public protest activities that distract the security forces from their overwhelming and clear responsibility, for which they should have the support of the whole population, and that is the fight against terrorism.

Sir John Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I have just given to a question by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer).

Sir John Farr: What evidence does my hon. Friend have of any new sources of supply of terrorist arms from

overseas to Northern Ireland, and in particular what importance does he attach to the threat by colonel Gaddafi to supply the IRA?

Mr. King: The House will be aware of earlier attempts some years ago to obtain arms from Libya. We are under no illusions about terrorist attempts to secure arms from a number of sources. We are grateful that the assistance of the intelligence and security services of a number of other countries has successfully prevented the supply of such weapons.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. McLoughlin: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Thailand.

Mr. McLoughlin: During her busy day will my right hon. Friend find time to consider the action that is being taken by some teaching unions? Does she not find it strange that they took action to get a pay rise, that they have now been awarded a pay rise, and that they are taking action again? Is it not true that the only people who will suffer as a result are the teaching professions and those in state education?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own point very effectively. The disruption in our schools is now totally unjustified, and I think it is absolutely appalling that some teachers pursue their own interests by damaging the education of the children in their care.

Mr. Kinnock: As information about an illegal concert party operating in the shares of Westland plc has been available to the Government for some months, what action have the Government taken to establish who precisely was involved with the nominee companies and what measures can be taken against such persons?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made it quite clear some time ago that he was not taking any further action on this matter. I believe that that was announced some time in August.

Mr. Kinnock: Does that answer come from the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister because they are certain that no one who is involved in this operation falls within United Kingdom jurisdiction? If they are certain, can they tell us how they know that?

The Prime Minister: I am not quite certain whether the right hon. Gentleman is referring to something that has come to light in recent times. That, of course, will be considered in the appropriate way.

Mr. Kinnock: I was trying to clarify the basis upon which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and now the Prime Minister have taken their view. That is especially necessary, is it not, because 12 months ago the Prime Minister said that decisions about Westland plc should be in the hands of the shareholders. When, so


obviously, a concert party was operating that had a major effect on the outcome, does the Prime Minister not think that she ought to pursue the matter further?

The Prime Minister: I understand that on 28 August 1986, following receipt of advice from the Attorney-General, the Secretary of State decided, finally, not to appoint inspectors. Westland, the solicitors of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, the Takeover Panel and the Stock Exchange were all informed on 10 September. There has been no reaction from any of these parties.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend, during the day, give instructions to those who may be accompanying her to Moscow to the effect that, for the defence of Europe, it is imperative that any agreement on disarmament should cover not only intermediate-range nuclear weapons but the shorter-range weapons, which may be no danger to the United States but are a major danger to European defence?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a highly complicated matter, as he knows. As I have made clear in the House on several occasions, we cannot look at any single aspect of arms control in isolation. An INF agreement must provide for restraints on those shorter-range systems which could be used to circumvent an INF agreement. These are the longer-range SRINF; in practice it means the Soviet SS12, SS22 and SS23. I believe that the draft treaty tabled by the United States will do that effectively. At the same time, there must be provision for follow-on negotiations to deal further with those systems and to rectify the imbalance in shorter-range systems, comprising shorter range INF and SNF with a range of less than 500 kilometres. We also need to tackle the conventional imbalance: as nuclear weapons are reduced, measures to deal with disparities in conventional forces become even more important. [Interruption.] Yes, it is a very important question. Because of its complexity I thought it right to get the position absolutely clear.

Mr. Steel: In view of the judgment in the House of Lords this afternoon disqualifying 47 councillors in Liverpool, will the Prime Minister recognise that the financial damage that they have left behind will require united action in the city and co-operation from the Government to rectify it? Will she, therefore, agree to meet next week a broadly based deputation of the political, church and industrial leaders from the city?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. Liverpool council was democratically elected. The decision which has been taken today has been reached properly in accordance with the law. There will be local elections and by-elections, I expect, on 7 May, when the council will be reconstituted. Those democratically elected must learn to take responsibility for their actions.

Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend take time during her busy day to consider the very serious concern expressed by many sections of the community about the possession of chemical weapons by the Soviet Union? Will she discuss the matter with Mr. Gorbachev during her forthcoming visit?

The Prime Minister: We have been gravely concerned about chemical weapons and we have been active in trying

to secure disarmament in these weapons, as we gave them up a considerable time ago. I expect that that matter will come up during the deliberations.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Prime Minister aware of the outrage felt throughout the northern region over the switch by the BBC of the transmission of programmes for Cumbria from Newcastle to Manchester? Is the Prime Minister aware— [Interruption.] Is is a very important distinction. Is the Prime Minister aware that despite a poll of 6,042 people carried out by Cumbrian Newspapers in which 96·8 per cent. of the respondents opposed the switch, and a poll that I carried out in the Grasslot miners' welfare in Maryport, where only two of 260 people I consulted agreed with the switch—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This does not relate to the Prime Minister's responsibility.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The BBC insists—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Come to the question. Opinion polls are not a matter for the Prime Minister.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The BBC insists on this decision— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to the Prime Minister's responsibility. I think the hon. Gentleman has asked his question. Opinion polls are not a matter for the Prime Minister.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Prime Minister believe that the BBC should respond to what the people want and not take arbitrary decisions on its own behalf, without consulting the people?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern because he has written to me extensively about this matter. I believe my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has explained to him that the reorganisation of television services by the BBC is wholly a matter for the BBC and the Government have no power to intervene in the regional organisation of BBC services. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have put his own protests through to the relevant Committee, but by drawing attention to this matter in the House he has demonstrated his concern to the BBC.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Bottomley: Will the Prime Minister urgently send President Reagan a copy of Monday's Hansard to remind him, prior to his meeting with the Leader of the Opposition, that successive Governments of all parties, and all sensible people, support effective defence policies?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the defence policies of the Opposition would gravely endanger, the NATO Alliance, which is the cornerstone of our security. We cannot claim to be a loyal


member of that Alliance while disassociating ourselves from its strategy, based on nuclear deterrence. My hon. Friend is quite correct.

Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the so-called irresponsible council of Liverpool in the last three years has built 4,600 houses, put 11,600 people into work in the construction industry, built sports centres and nursing schools, kept down the rents of people living in council houses, and at the same time has kept down rates to 5 per cent.? If that is irresponsible, what about the actions of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has broken the law five times and has had to come to this House in order to get legislation to put it right? It is a scandal.

The Prime Minister: Liverpool city council is responsible for running its financial affairs prudently. Three separate courts—the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords—have now confirmed the district auditors' view that Liverpool councillors incurred losses for the city council by deliberately delaying the setting of a rate for 1985–86. The courts found that they acted wilfully or at best with disregard for the legality of their actions.

Mr. Watts: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Watts: Will my right hon. Friend find time to consider the relative merits of public expenditure and tax

cuts? In doing so will she reject the advice of those, like the Leader of the Opposition, who have substantial incomes, and consider instead the needs of families on average incomes who need large tax cuts to meet excessive rate increases imposed by local authorities?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows, our aim has been, and will continue to be, to reduce the burden of income tax when it is prudent to do so, particularly to help those on modest incomes. He knows some of the examples which I have frequently used which demonstrate the point. A nurse on earnings of £155 a week pays £43 of that gross pay in income tax and national insurance contributions. A primary school teacher pays, out of a weekly salary of £205, some £61 in tax and national insurance contributions. Both of those figures make the case for reductions in income tax.

Mr. Dormand: In the little time left to the right hon. Lady before her defeat in the next general election, what does she intend to do to repair the damage to personal freedoms, to reverse the trend towards centralisation of power and to restore some regard for truth in public affairs?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I would not deny him the pleasure of whistling in the dark. On the second part, I point out the steps that the Government have taken to enlarge freedom by the number of controls that we have cut and by taking away from trade union bosses practically the government of this country as well as the power to dictate to their members.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 16 MARCH— Second Reading of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill.
At Ten o'clock the Question will be put on all outstanding Supplementary Estimates and Votes.
TUESDAY 17 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget Statement. EC documents relevant to the Budget debate will be shown in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 18 MARCH AND THURSDAY 19 MARCH?—
Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 20 MARCH—Private Members' motions. MONDAY 23 MARCH—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget Statement.

[Tuesday 17 March

Relevant European documents
(a) 10155/86—Annual Economic Report: 1986–87
(b) Unnumbered—Annual Economic Report: 1986–87:
Final version as Adopted
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee
(a) HC 22-ii ( 1986–87), para 6
(b) HC 22-x ( 1986–87), para 1]

Mr. Kinnock: Has the Leader of the House seen the report from the National Children's Home today entitled "Children in Danger"? In view of the obvious and serious need for help with housing, income support and improved health and welfare services for so many children in Britain, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House should debate these matters as soon as possible, and will he undertake to make appropriate time available for such a debate?
Following the haste in pushing through the Local Government Bill, the Secretary of State for the Environment's latest folly, when will the House, have the opportunity to debate the rate support grant settlement?
Will the right hon. Gentleman make time for an urgent debate on the funding of scientific research and the accelerating brain drain whereby some of our best scientists in essential areas of research are taking up careers in countries where their justifiable needs for facilities and support are properly recognised?
Finally, there is to be a statement today about Sizewell B. Does the Leader of the House recall that on 12 February he agreed that there would be a debate on the subject as soon as possible after such a statement? Will that debate take place before the Easter recess?

Mr. Biffen: On the first point, I have not seen the report "Children in Danger", but I heard a radio programme about it this morning in which it was suggested that the subject could be considered in the context of income tax levels. I shall certainly bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's point and consider what possibilities there may be for a debate, although undoubtedly many of the suggestions will fall within the debate that will be available following the Budget.
On the matter of a debate upon the rate support grant settlement, I hope that that can take place in the fairly near

future and, doubtless, it will be a matter for consultation. Perhaps we could consider through the usual channels a debate upon the funding of research, although I must concede that there is not much Government time immediately available.
I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said about consideration of any decision on Sizewell B, and I am happy to repeat the assurance I gave earlier. Perhaps the precise timing could be a matter for discussion through the usual channels.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Dorset there is continuing concern about over-development and some confusion about the relationship between the Government's proposed new planning circular and existing planning circulars? In view of the great public interest and concern about that, will my right hon. Friend please ensure that the House has a chance to debate the planning circular at about the time of the closing date for the receipt of applications by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my hon. Friend said. I have indicated to the House that I think that it would be appropriate that there should be a debate on countryside policy, and, within that broad ambit, I shall consider sympathetically my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. David Alton: Is the Leader of the House aware that there will be widespread consternation and dismay among the 500,000 people who live in the city of Liverpool at the Prime Minister's announcement to the House this afternoon that she is not prepared to meet a delegation of Church leaders, business men and politicians from the city to discuss the city's grave problems? Is he further aware that there is currently some £800 million of corporate debt in the city but that contracts worth over £24 million have been entered into in the past 48 hours? The city will regard the right hon. Lady's decision as leaving its citizens to stew in their juice.
Surely the Leader of the House recognises that the situation is grave and serious and that there should be a debate next week. Will he provide time for it?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is making a number of assertions that he knows perfectly well I am not prepared to take up in the context of next week's business, because it is my task to say what arrangements can or cannot be made for our immediate and future debates. However, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having Liverpool as a topic for an Adjournment debate next Wednesday and perhaps we shall see how things go then.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is growing anxiety at the increasing rate of discharge from hospitals of people suffering from schizophrenia to local authorities which do not have adequate accommodation for their care? Will he accept that in Southampton that is done well and in places such as Winchester it has been planned well but that concern is at such a level that the Government should be diverting more resources to that area, particularly to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship? Will he also accept that it is a subject worthy of debate?

Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and I underline the significance of it. However, he will realise that during the coming week, when we shall have a debate upon the Budget, the whole area of public spending is


available for consideration. I hope that he will have an opportunity then to raise the point that he is seeking to make briefly now.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Perhaps the Leader of the House will recall my plea last Tuesday, after the Minister's statement on the future of the artificial limb and appliance service, for a debate in Government time on that important matter at the earliest possible opportunity. Although I appreciate that the debate cannot take place next week, will the right hon. Gentleman look sympathetically at that request?

Mr. Biffen: Sympathy comes more easily from the Leader of the House than action. However, I shall look at the point that the right hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Michael Latham: On the matter of the answer my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) on countryside policy, will my right hon. Friend ensure that this subject is given priority in the week after next? Is he aware that, following publication of the Government papers, it is essential that we have such a debate to discuss not only the countryside, but the role of agriculture within it?

Mr. Biffen: I totally accept my hon. Friend's point about the relationship between agriculture and a policy for the countryside. I cannot be precise about the timing of a debate, but I take note of what he has said and have sympathy with him.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman must bear some responsibility for the conduct of his colleagues. Can he take some action to try to prevent the honourable oicks and yobbos behind him who now chiack every leading Labour party speaker from the Front Bench? Is he not aware that that is not good enough for parliamentary conduct, and should he not remember that, if it comes to it, some of us have more powerful organs than the rest of them put together?

Mr. Biffen: Of course I take account of all of that. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have never set myself out to be a Stalinist in my execution of duties as Leader of the House. However, I will exhort my hon. Friends to go to the Tea Room to see whether they can pick up good manners.

Mr. Eric Forth: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there has recently been much talk of self-discipline and self-restraint. Will he consider having a day's debate next week on self-discipline and self-restraint? Will he suggest that the debate might be led off by the "Tandoori Tiger", the Leader of the Opposition, and might well be summed up by the "Tea Room Teaser", the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), so that Conservative Members may learn the secrets of self-discipline and self-restraint so admirably shown by Opposition Members?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that self-discipline is helpful to us all and necessary for a modest hon. Member. I also believe that the history of Parliament is one of controlled incontinence.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is it the Government's intention to avoid holding the debate that is normally held on the proposals by the European

Commission with regard to agricultural price fixing prior to the important meetings in which the Minister is engaged?

Mr. Biffen: Those are very important subjects, and I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.

Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern about the working of the legal aid scheme, which is supposed to help very poor people—

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: And lawyers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have often reflected that we need different microphones in the Chamber.

Mr. Stokes: —in view of the fact that a defendant recently received legal aid who owned a hotel worth £100,000 and a motor car worth £28,000?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot comment on the specific point mentioned by my hon. Friend. However, I suggest that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be answering questions on Monday, he might like to put his points then.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that there are thousands of young people with a limited life expectancy because they have serious and severe muscular dystrophy and, as a consequence, are prisoners in their own homes or are confined behind garden gates like dogs or toddlers because the Government will not provide them with outdoor powered wheelchairs despite parliamentary questions, deputations to Ministers and early-day motions? May we have a debate on that subject, if not next week, as soon as possible afterwards?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who is a fair controversialist, will recognise that it was not so very long ago that we had a debate on the disabled. However, I will certainly bear his comments in mind.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the relationship between local authorities that are controlled by the Labour party and the police, particularly in view of the disgraceful behaviour of the acting leader of the Labour party in Wolverhampton who cast doubt upon the impartiality of the Police Complaints Authority and where two Labour councillors last Saturday joined a march organised to abuse and revile the police?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises an immensely serious point, and I am sure that it is not confined to Wolverhampton. I see no early prospect of such a debate in Government time. However, I wish him well in seeking the opportunity for a debate in other ways.

Mr. Robert Parry: Is the Leader of the House aware that this afternoon a number of Liverpool city councillors were denied admittance to the Palace of Westminster? They intended to attend the other place to hear the decision on the appeal against their banning from public office. They had also made. appointments with hon. Members. Will the right hon. Gentleman have words with the Serjeant at Arms to look into this matter? I am certain that if these people had been brokers from the City lobbying on behalf of big business they would have had no trouble getting into the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Biffen: Of course, I shall look into the circumstances attending the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. He will appreciate that, in so doing, I do not in any sense imply that there has been any fault by the authorities of the House.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a widespread welcome for the response by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a parliamentary question last Friday which showed that the entire Government were behind the efforts of Cable and Wireless to obtain a share of the Japanese telecommunications market? Does he agree that we should have time for a debate, given the massive Japanese investment in this country, the balance of payments, which is substantially in Japan's favour, and the unwillingness of many Japanese interests to allow British investment in their country?

Mr. Biffen: Of course I recognise the importance of that issue, but I do not believe that there is an early prospect of Government time to debate the topic. I am certain that my hon. Friend will, in his own way, use the opportunities that the procedures of the House provide.

Mr. Greville Janner: When may we have a debate on the right of men to retire voluntarily at 60? Is it not ludicrous that, at a time of continuing high unemployment, men are forced to stay on at work when they are desperate to retire while younger people are kept out of the jobs that those people want to leave?

Mr. Biffen: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is implying that there should be a debate on pension levels. That has wide financial implications. As next week is devoted to the Budget debate, the hon. and learned Gentleman will he able to make his speech then.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: I hesitate to put this question after what the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has said, but at least I am retiring at the next election. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that we like to facilitate Government business and are enthusiastic about doing so. Will he tell the House when we are likely to return after the Easter recess so that we may facilitate our personal arrangements, both outside and within the House? We should like to know whether we can meet people here on Tuesday or Wednesday. It is important that we know the day.

Mr. Biffen: I shall ensure that my hon. Friend and the House generally know the day as quickly as possible.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: If the Leader of the House and the Conservative party are really concerned about local democracy, we should have a debate on it, in view of the cock-ups by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the fact that today elected councillors were disqualified by the Lords. It is time for the House to have a debate on local government democracy, taking into account the impositions placed on local authorities by the Secretary of State and by the courts which have rejected those representatives. No doubt the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is gratified by the fact that the Government have passed control of Liverpool council into the hands of the Liberal party without the electorate being involved.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not, even by inference, challenging the validity of the judgment

of their Lordships. There is to be a debate next week on Liverpool. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will try to use that opportunity to make his remarks.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: In view of Mr. Justice Latey's judgment in a recent surrogacy case, will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985, which supposedly was designed to outlaw commercial surrogacy? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are deeply offended that Miss Lorrien Finley and others, who arrange for womb leasing to take place, are allowed to get away with it? May we at least have a statement about measures to protect the unborn child?

Mr. Biffen: If my hon. Friend implies that the case to which he refers involved commercial surrogacy, I note what he said; but that would be a highly controversial interpretation of that case. I must be realistic about this; there is no prospect of Government time being available for such a debate, although I realise that it is well within the competence of any hon. Member, by private enterprise, to raise it in the House.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the Leader of the House recommend to the Prime Minister that she makes a statement on the number of meetings that she has had with Major Walker of KMS concerning United Kingdom Government sales of arms to the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua? Will he also make plain to the Prime Minister that it is already evident outside the House that Major Walker is the Colonel North of this Government's Irangate, and that it is time the Government came clean on the matter?

Mr. Biffen: There are tasks for me other than to be a mere intermediary between the hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister. I suggest that he makes direct representations.

Mr. John Wilkinson: In his consideration of how business in the House is conducted, will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the possibility of re-establishing in the House the Committee on Science and Technology? It is quite wrong that we should be dependent on the deliberations, however expert, of the other place on important matters like civil research and development. There is need for a body of this kind.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, but it runs to the very heart of the departmental Select Committee structure which was established for the assistance of the House in its work. I shall bear in mind what he says, but I suspect that a debate on the matter belongs to the next Parliament rather than to this one.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his answer about the need for a statement or a debate on arms being supplied to the Contras in Nicaragua? Is he not aware that the United States Government have run into trouble because of illegal supplies to the Contras? It has been reported that decisions have been made by the British Government to help the Contras in this way. If any assistance is being given by the Government in that way, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that it is made known to the House?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will have ample and early opportunity next Wednesday when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be answering questions.

Mr. Conal Gregory: In view of the Zeebrugge tragedy, will my right hon. Friend consider initiating a debate at the earliest opportunity? There is public disquiet in Yorkshire and in many other parts of the country about the public liability aspects of transport, and the Government have been pressing for an uprating of the Athens convention which limits liability to under £38,000 for death or serious injury. Even worse, in the event of death or serious injury on an aeroplane the Warsaw convention limits liability to under £14,000. Is it not right that in the very near future the House should have an opportunity to debate this?

Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that topic. It would have been rather extraordinary if this afternoon had passed without some reference to it. He will know that an inquiry has already been commissioned, but I note what he says about the possibilities of a debate. While I do not wish to hold out any immediate hope, I take account of what he says.

Mr. Clement Freud: Bearing in mind that the new Member of Parliament for Truro will take his seat on Tuesday, will the Leader of the House assure us that there will be a full quota of ministerial statements to delay the new Member in taking his seat? Could one of those ministerial statements be on the subject of a private notice question that is to be tabled tomorrow on the dangers of passive smoking?

Mr. Biffen: In all charity I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the conclusion of his question was a mild anti-climax after all the expectation that was aroused by his earlier comment. Of course, all things are taken into account through the usual channels.

Mr. Michael Fallon: It is the intention of the BBC to screen a series of programmes starting this weekend on the world of UB40 based on a very partial, shoddy report prepared by a pseudo-academic unit of Newcastle university. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the BBC and its obligations under the charter?

Mr. Biffen: It must be heroic optimism that prompts that question, because, even if I were disposed to have the matter debated, I could not do it in time to place the debate alongside when the programmes are to be shown.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for an early debate on the Government's foreign policy, particularly towards central America, so that hon. Members can raise the serious matter of the supply of arms illegally from this country to a group of terrorists trying to kill people in Nicaragua? Will he also say whether the Government are prepared to undertake an investigation into the work of a mercenary recruiting organisation here that appears to have the tacit approval of Her Majesty's Government in their attempts to destroy the democratically elected Government of the people of Nicaragua?

Mr. Biffen: I have received a number of requests that there should be a general foreign affairs debate, and I hope that that can be undertaken reasonably soon. Meanwhile, however, all the hon. Gentleman's deep feelings will have to be sublimated into Question Time on Wednesday.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 634, with a supporting amendment?
[That this House believes that overseas Civil Service pensioners should be allowed to count war service towards their pension entitlement in the same way as every other branch of the public service; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to do justice towards a small number of mostly elderly people whose working lives were spent abroad in the service of the Crown.]
It has been signed by 108 Members. It refers to the fact that all the public services of this country are entitled to count war service in the computation of their pensions, except where that public service was overseas. Is it not a disgrace that this injustice should have been perpetuated for so long? Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the matter so that that injustice can be removed as soon as possible?

Mr. Biffen: I must confess that I do not see the likelihood of an early debate in Government time on this topic, but it touches intimately on the financing of public sector pensions. Therefore, it would be appropriate for my hon. Friend to make a speech in the debate on the Budget.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Leader of the House made any progress in trying to tempt the Attorney-General to come to the House to make a statement on the subject of equality before the law, especially with reference to the fact that the Lord Chancellor said in the other place last week that the case involving all those connected with the swindle at Unimar and the Lloyd's insurance market, in which 1,000 people were cheated out of their money, should not be pursued because it would be a waste of time, too expensive and too exhaustive of the legal procedures?
Is not the fact that the £30 million involved in that case has now gone down the drain in stark contrast to the way in which today the Law Lords have made a decision about 47 councillors in Liverpool and Lambeth, who have been surcharged to the tune of less than £250,000? Is there not something wrong with the system of law in Britain and freedom under it when these people in the City, these crooks, these swindlers, these friends of the Tory party— [Interruption.] Yes, and they have given money to the Tory party. There is something wrong in Britain when these people can get away with it, but councillors who are building homes and doing their best to provide services for the people in their communities can be kicked out of office by people who represent the establishment that has allowed these crooks to get away.

Mr. Biffen: It is to be deprecated when hon. Members attack a decision made by the Law Lords merely because it happens to be politically inconvenient. The hon. Gentleman has elaborated his case. It so happens that, on Monday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be answering questions.

Mr. Skinner: I know.

Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman knows, I wonder why he asked me the question. He will have the chance to address his questions to the quarter to which they should be directed.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the most important Secondary Heads Association report on the serious decline in


competitive games and physical education in schools. May we have an early debate on this matter, which is important from the point of view of both the nation and our children?

Mr. Biffen: There is widespread recognition that games and team spirit imply qualities needed in this House and outside.

Mr. David Clelland: In view of the Prime Minister's comment that those who are democratically elected must learn to take responsibility for their actions, will the Leader of the House draw the attention of the right hon. Lady to page 9 of today's copy of the Newcastle Journal, which carries a photograph of hundreds of my constituents queuing for free EEC food, some of whom described butter as a luxury? Is that not a damning indictment of the Tory party's policies? Will he ask the right hon. Lady to come to the Dispatch Box, or, better still, the ballot box, to take responsibility for her actions?

Mr. Biffen: I do not for one moment accept the highly coloured views that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, but I shall convey his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I shall do that more willingly as they are connected with the Newcastle Journal.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend say when he expects to make time available to debate the reports of the Public Accounts Committee, one of which is on the operation of the legal aid scheme?

Mr. Biffen: There are well-established conventions regarding reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the debating of them. I shall try to follow those as faithfully as I can, and in so doing I hope to satisfy my hon. Friend.

Mr. Max Madden: Is the Leader of the House concerned about the allegations that DHSS liable relative officers are asking most intimate questions of 16-year-old pregnant girls? Is he aware that the questions are alleged to include, "When did you first have sex? When was your baby conceived? What is your precise relationship with the father of your baby?" Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Social Services issues an urgent instruction to all DHSS staff that such questions are not permissible and should not be put?

Mr. Biffen: I was not aware of the situation that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, but I shall convey his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Tony Marlow: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) in asking for an urgent debate on parliamentary behaviour? It would give the Labour party an interesting

opportunity of explaining whether its new doctrine of self-discipline would apply to macho little Welshmen outside Pakistani chippies in Ealing.

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says, and he clearly demonstrates that such a debate would be colourful, but essentially I have nothing further to add to the reply that I have already given.

Mr. Edward Leigh: In view of the extraordinary outburst in Monday night's defence debate from the official alliance spokesman, who said that he was not responsible for Liberal policies, and the intervention in that debate by the leader of the SDP, who said that alliance policies were quite distinct from Liberal policies, may we have an urgent defence debate so that the House may establish once and for all whether the official 1986 Liberal publication, "These are Liberal policies" should be renamed, for election purposes, "These are not Liberal policies"?

Mr. Biffen: That is an interesting line of approach, but my hon. Friend must realise that I am circumscribed for debating time, and therefore he will have to use some ingenuity with the Order Paper as it stands. I should have thought that the varied financial implications of the alternative defence policies of the alliance would make that an appropriate topic for the Budget debate.

Mr. Tony Favell: Bearing in mind the remarks that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Employment made this morning on the black economy, and the resentment of those who milk the system that is felt by millions of honest taxpayers, may we expect an early debate on the subject?

Mr. Biffen: I have the great advantage of not having heard the remarks of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but I will take a swing. I should have thought that next week's Budget debate, the levels of direct taxation and the implications for the black economy all hold together magnificently.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend associate my name with the first request this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition for a debate on the plight of children? Such a debate would give me an opportunity to tell people of the jeers, smears and smirks that I have had to suffer from the Opposition, and also for my colleagues and I to tell people that we remain undaunted in our efforts to protect children.

Mr. Biffen: I am so glad that the Leader of the Opposition has provided solace for someone. I associate my hon. Friend's name with his in a request for a debate.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it after the statement.

Sizewell B Nuclear Power Station

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that I have reached a decision on the application by the Central Electricity Generating Board to construct a nuclear power station using a pressurised water reactor; the Sizewell B station in Suffolk. In accordance with the statutory requirements of the inquiry rules, I am notifying the board, the local planning authorities and the objectors of my decision and my reasons therefor. I am placing copies of my decision letter in the Library of the House.
The CEGB's application has been the subject of the most wide-ranging and longest public inquiry that has been carried out in this country. I published the report on 26 January 1987. It was debated by the House on 23 February. On that occasion the thoroughness and well-written nature of Sir Frank Layfield's work were generally acknowledged by all hon. Members.
I can assure the House that, before reaching my decision, I have carefully considered the points raised during that debate and those that were made in the debate in another place last week.
Hon. Members have clearly studied the inspector's report with care. They will be familiar with the conclusion that there is a national interest in building a PWR, and that that can best be met at Sizewell. He found that a new power station is required to meet anticipated capacity need; that it should be approved in the near future; and that the proposed PWR is likely to be the least-cost means of adding that capacity. The inspector further concluded that there is good confidence that Sizewell B was sufficiently safe to be tolerable, and that the national need for the station overrides the local interest in favour of conservation.
Sir Frank therefore recommended that consent and deemed planning permission should be given for the station, but should be refused for the second access road. He also made a number of detailed subsidiary recommendations.
The inspector closed the inquiry in March 1985 and, properly, reported only on the evidence he received before then. In reaching my decision, however, I must consider whether anything has occurred since that date which is material to my decision and, if so, what weight I should give to any such matters.
I have, in particular, considered the relevance of Chernobyl to the safety of the proposed station. I have also taken into account recent changes in electricity demand and fossil fuel prices.
First, in relation to the Chernobyl accident, the chief inspector of nuclear installations has advised me that the PWR design for Sizewell B is of a different reactor type from the Soviet RBMK design. All nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom, unlike those in the Soviet Union, must have engineered control and automatic protection systems. Moreover, our system of regulation, unlike that which applied in the Soviet Union, ensures that there is a proper and reliable procedural framework of controls. All our experience in the United Kingdom has demonstrated that there is a superior safety culture to that which apparently existed at Chernobyl, and which allowed the repeated deliberate non-compliance with safety procedures.
The chief inspector of nuclear installations therefore advises me that the Chernobyl accident does not call for any reconsideration of the conclusions or recommendations of the Layfield report. I agree with his advice, a copy of which I am placing in the Library.
In his report, Sir Frank Layfield also discusses emergency plans in the event of a nuclear accident. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 18 December that the Government were undertaking a review—in the light of our experience of the Chernobyl accident—of the United Kingdom's emergency plans and procedures in the event of a nuclear accident either in the United Kingdom or abroad. The conclusion of the first stage of the review was that, while planning needs to provide more specifically for an accident outside the United Kingdom, existing emergency plans continue to provide a valid basis for the response to any nuclear accident in the United Kingdom.
Turning to the economic case, I have noted that since the inquiry closed economic activity has risen, with associated growth in demand for electricity. Sizewell B, even if started now, is unlikely to be ready ahead of need.
On the other hand, fossil fuel prices have fallen since 1985. Projecting these forward to the end of the century and beyond is subject to great uncertainty. I have, however, examined the inspector's economic case against a range of coal prices considerably lower than those discussed in the report.
Even against that lower range, I have concluded that Sizewell B remains the cheapest option for meeting the anticipated need for new capacity. I have also concluded, as did the inspector, that the development of a further nuclear station would be a valuable step in achieving greater fuel diversity in our generating system.
In view of the inspector's conclusions and recommendations, together with my own consideration of the issues, I agree with his conclusions that Sizewell B is acceptably safe and would meet a national need by providing new capacity at least cost. That outweighs any disadvantage from disturbances to the locality.
I have therefore decided to give my consent, under section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909, to the CEGB's application to construct the Sizewell B power station, together with deemed planning permission under section 40 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and the necessary investment approval. In order to minimise disturbance to the locality, I have decided that this should be subject to the detailed local planning conditions proposed by the inspector, and should exclude the CEGB's proposal for a new access road, consent for which is refused.
In my decision letter, which sets out my detailed response, I also accept the substance of the inspector's other recommendations. A number of these recommendations will now need to be actively followed up outside Government. In particular, I agree with the inspector that a study of alternatives to the B1122 for heavy traffic should be made, and I am commending that to the Suffolk county council.
Sir Frank Layfield also helpfully made a number of observations and informal proposals for further action which he considered desirable.I am not required to reach a conclusion on those for the purposes of my section 2 consent. I have, however, examined them carefully and, where appropriate, they will be further considered by Government.
In reaching my decision I have considered most carefully Sir Frank Layfield's comments on safety. I should make it clear that, as a separate process, under different statute, the CEGB also requires a licence from the independent nuclear installations inspectorate as well as my consent before it can start construction. The chief inspector of nuclear installations informs me that the nuclear installations inspectorate judges that there are now no safety obstacles of substance which would prevent the licensing of Sizewell B in the next couple of months. He has assured me that the nuclear installations inspectorate will consider carefully Sir Frank Layfield's comments and proposals on the safety of the reactor before issuing a licence. Sir Frank Layfield commented that both the CEGB and the nuclear installations inspectorate possessed impressive technical competence and engineering judgment of a high quality.
I am fully confident that the nuclear installations inspectorate will continue to satisfy itself about the safety of the station throughout the rest of its design, construction, operation and decommissioning. At each major stage in the construction and commissioning process, the approval of the nuclear installations inspectorate is required before the CEGB can proceed further.
Turning briefly to alternative sources of electricity I should make it clear that the Government are determined that renewable techniques should, in the longer term, make the maximum contribution of which they are economically capable. We are supporting a major research and development programme on which over £100 million has been spent to date. Strong support will continue to be provided for our programmes on wind, tide and geothermal hot rocks.
My decision on Sizewell B reinforces the importance that the Government attach to the role already played by nuclear power within the United Kingdom. It now provides some 20 per cent. of our electricity requirements and with those stations due for commissioning in the near future, a quarter of Britain's electricity will come from nuclear power. On any projection of world energy needs there is no way of meeting those needs in the coming decades without the emergence of a substantial contribution from nuclear power. My Sizewell decision today will enable Britain to play its part in that endeavour.

Mr. Stanley Orme: We regret this decision. It sets the wrong pattern for future energy requirements in the United Kingdom for the next decade and beyond.
Sir Frank Layfield laboured long and hard to produce his report, but that report is out of date both on the economics of electricity generation and on safety, particularly as Sir Frank Layfield did not deal with the Chernobyl disaster. We are astonished that those new factors have been dismissed by the Secretary of State. Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the evidence that convinced him on those particular points?
There is no justification for building the imported technology of the PWR in Britain. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's announcement, can he assure the House that that will not lead to the construction of the PWR family

throughout Britain, which was recommended by Sir Frank Layfield, and that any further applications for the construction of PWRs will each be judged independently?
When does the right hon. Gentleman expect publication of the pre-construction safety report and the final safety report as recommended by Sir Frank Layfield? In his report Sir Frank Layfield lays considerable emphasis on the responsibility of the nuclear installations inspectorate. What steps are being taken to ensure that the NII is adequately staffed to fulfil its responsibilities?
Sir Frank Layfield makes a series of recommendations throughout the report. He lists 14 that he regards as the minimum that should be done if consent is given. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that that minimum is being done, and, indeed, that many more of the recommendations have been accepted and acted upon. In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that all the elements of Layfield's recommendation 4 on safety criteria will be complied with, including those on parliamentary and public consultation? When will the review of emergency plans in case of nuclear accident be completed and when will the report be published?
It seems extraordinary that the decision has been taken to proceed with the PWR before the Government and responsible agencies have solved the problems of the disposal of nuclear waste. I am sure that many Conservative Members will share my misgivings on that matter and will join me in urging the Government to produce an acceptable solution before proceeding with the PWR.
Finally, in a nation rich in indigenous energy sources, a saner, more economic and safer option would be the construction of modern and clean coal-fired power stations. To meet the nation's capacity need more quickly, and, we would argue, more cheaply, we shall continue to urge that policy upon the Government.

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman ended his question by referring to a nation rich in energy resources, but in the next few decades, as Britain's oil and gas resources decline, the Labour party wishes to eradicate the nuclear industry leaving Britain dependent on only one form of energy. I cannot think of a more irresponsible energy policy than that.
Fortunately, the Soviet Union published in detail for the International Atomic Energy Agency every detail of the Chernobyl event.

Mr. Orme: Human error.

Mr. Walker: No, it said first, that it was due to a wrongly designed reactor; secondly, to faulty engineering; and thirdly to human error. The chief inspector—the right hon. Gentleman considered the strength of the NII to be paramount—has advised me on the basis of all the evidence available to him and a copy has been placed in the Library.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the PWR being imported, but I must point out to the House that 93 per cent. of the work done at Sizewell B will be produced in Britain by British firms. As a result of building Sizewell B Britain will, for the first time, have an opportunity in the massively expanding PWR market that is taking place throughout the world. Therefore, in terms of our trade policy, it is a considerable advantage to Britain.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall guarantee that the NII is properly staffed. At present, a substantial recruitment programme is taking place in order to meet the requirements.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the 14 recommendations. I can only say that the Government have accepted all the major recommendations that apply to them. The right hon. Gentleman will see that each of those recommendations is dealt with in the detailed letter that has been sent to the CEGB, a copy of which will be available in the Library.
On the alternative of coal, the right hon. Gentleman knows that it is up to the CEGB to apply to the Government and, as he well knows, it has been looking at the possibility of a number of coal-fired stations. I anticipate that in the near future it will probably be making such an application.

Mr. John Hannam: I thank my right hon. Friend for making the right decision in this crucially important area, but in view of the importance to Britain in future of maintaining competitive electricity prices, how does his announcement of this nuclear programme today compare with the programmes of our major industrial competitors throughout the world?

Mr. Walker: I am afraid to say that I have only announced this afternoon the go-ahead for one PWR station in the foreseeable future. That is a modest contribution compared with our major competitors. France intends to build 15 new nuclear power stations by 1995. The Japanese have embarked on a programme of 16 new nuclear power stations before 1995, and have proposed a much bigger programme to move to 60 per cent. dependence on nuclear energy in the foreseeable future. Germany has reaffirmed its programme of four new nuclear power stations to be built by 1990. The United States has commissioned 12 new nuclear power stations in the past two years and 19 new nuclear power stations are under construction. Since Chernobyl, the Soviet Union has announced that it will double its nuclear power programme.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Secretary of State will be aware that my colleagues and I much regret and are opposed to today's decision. The Secretary of State's statement has virtually evaded every question associated with the decision.
Will he first explain whether consideration was given to investing the money that the PWR will cost into energy conservation instead? Does he agree that the savings that could be achieved would be greater than the power that will be created by building the PWR? Secondly, will he explain what the procedure will be for building further PWRs, especially as Sir Frank Layfield said that he regarded Sizewell as a prototype to be tested? Thirdly, does he agree with Sir Frank Layfield that a simulator should be built before the final power station is constructed?
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly what the phrase "superior safety culture" means? I hope, for his sake, that it is not a phrase that will come home to haunt him. With regard to the nuclear installations inspectorate, is he satisfied that he will be able to secure the technical staff necessary to honour the guarantees that he has just made?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman said that I would understand that he would be opposed to the decision, and in preparation for this afternoon I studied the policy of his parties. I discovered that one policy of the Liberal party is virtually identical to that of the Labour party. One SDP policy is completely different, and I discovered a new alliance policy that is difficult to comprehend from trying to read it. I presume that is a way of fudging what is now alliance policy. In fairness to the alliance, there is one area of the nuclear industry that they wish to retain—Dounreay—because it is in an area represented by an SDP Member.
As for nuclear inspectors, I am satisfied that we shall be able to recruit nuclear inspectors of the appropriate quality. With regard to PWRs, if I receive another application from the CEGB it will be carefully considered in the light of the factors made known.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his decision will be widely welcomed on the Conservative Benches, not least by those of us who have been arguing that we should bring our nuclear industry into the mainstream of the world's nuclear industry? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, far from being against the interests of the environment, the Royal Commission on environmental pollution recommended a modest programme of nuclear power stations to improve the atmospheric environment?
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the further stations in this modest programme will be subject to public inquiry, but that those inquiries will be limited to site-specific issues and will not cover the wide range of the Sizewell inquiry?

Mr. Walker: Future public inquiries must depend on the nature of the reactor and the nature of the request from the CEGB. With regard to this type of reactor, the Sizewell inquiry has served to ascertain the full facts and the full arguments on the topic.
My right hon. Friend has occupied posts connected with energy and the environment, and he is absolutely right that the Royal Commission pointed out the considerable environmental advantages of nuclear energy.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement will be widely understood as a complete victory for the nuclear lobby that, to my certain personal knowledge, for over 20 years has wanted us to adopt an American reactor? However, the right hon. Gentleman's announcement comes 10 years after the Americans abandoned the very reactor that he has now decided to buy. That is not a credible position to occupy.
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that on a decision of this magnitude he should not make the decision; Parliament should decide. It is quite wrong for him to listen like some managing director and then announce his decision. The House should have a debate in which the matter can be voted upon before a decision is finally reached.
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that, despite the ceaseless and ruthless campaign by Lord Marshall arid others, public opinion is well ahead of him and the lobby in arguing that the time has come to pause. People want a pause.
Is he aware that this question will arise in the general election? If the reactor is built, there will be a long period before we see the full uncertainty about adopting a reactor that the Americans have abandoned.

Mr. Walker: I wish to record the considerable contribution that the right hon. Gentleman made to the advance of nuclear energy in this country when he was Secretary of State for Energy. I know that he now regrets that contribution, but I do not think that many in this House do so.
It is nonsense to say that the United States has abandoned this type of reactor. At present, there is 11 times as much nuclear energy capacity in the United States as in Britain. The figures that I gave earlier to the House show that in the past two years the Americans have completed 12 new PWR stations, and currently 19 are under construction.
As for public opinion, I express my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman because, over the years, the impact of his views on public opinion has always been to the benefit of my party.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for implementing the substantial report. I ask him to lay at rest one of the greatest public anxieties which is that, at nuclear power stations leukaemia cases can arise that can be destructive.
What is the date for commissioning? Is my right hon. Friend prepared to recommend to the Leader of the House that we have a further debate so that these matters can be extensively canvassed?

Mr. Walker: Obviously the Leader of the House will take note of what my hon. Friend said about a debate, and that matter was raised by the Leader of the Opposition.
On the question of leukaemia, a most incredibly irresponsible press release was issued by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), the shadow Secretary of State for Social Services in which he referred to Sellafield as having "killing fields". I can guarantee that that view was totally and passionately opposed by the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment whose constituents live in that area and work at that station. The manner in which the figures were used in that statement gave a wholly false impression. I would be only too delighted for anybody to study the true evidence that has been produced. It certainly shows that there is no connection between the incidence of leukaemia and nuclear power stations.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I note the right hon. Gentleman's assurances about safety, but in my view they are rather injudicious. These stations are human artefacts and can be subject to human error, faults in design, metal fatigue, and so on. Many people believe that even the Russians do not build nuclear power stations to blow up in their faces. Accidents can happen anywhere, as we have seen in America.
The right hon. Gentleman has given us assurances about support for alternative sources of energy generation, but many of us do not accept those assurances. I am aware that funds have been reduced for the production of electricity from wave power. That has been the pattern followed all along by the Government. In view of the

doubts about the cost and the disposal of waste, does he not think that the nuclear programme should be abandoned?

Mr. Walker: No. I believe that it has been proved throughout the western world that nuclear energy is an extremely safe form of energy and its safety record compares exceedingly favourably with other forms of energy.
As for Scotland, the continuance of a nuclear power programme has considerable employment implications for Scottish industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that.
In every major area of renewable sources of energy the Government have increased expenditure and improved activity. We shall continue to do so.

Sir Ian Lloyd: May I offer my right hon. Friend my strongest possible endorsement of his decision, which I believe to be realistic, relevant, courageous and long overdue? Will he resist the siren voices that argue generally that because there has been no new order for a PWR power station in the United States, we should not take that route? As my right hon. Friend has said, about 30 such reactors have been built in the United States, and about 60 worldwide. We know that more are under construction and that more are likely to be ordered.
Would it not be true to say that to decide not to build a PWR station because of what happened at Chernobyl would be comparable to refusing to grant an airworthiness certificate to Concorde because a DC3 had crashed?

Mr. Walker: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said about Chernobyl. It is interesting that all the signs from the Soviet Union are that they will double their nuclear programme, and that they are almost certainly to take the PWR route. They will do so with their great awareness of the problems of safety.
There is no doubt that a great deal of activity is taking place in the United States. Our major industrial competitors, France, Germany, Japan and the United States, are all going ahead with nuclear power programmes that are far greater than ours.

Mr. Michael Morris: Has my right hon. Friend been able to calculate the impact on jobs if the Labour party's proposals to scrap all nuclear industry were pursued?

Mr. Walker: The Labour party agreed at its last conference—this has become its policy—to eradicate the nuclear industry over the coming decades by phasing out, first, Magnox and, secondly, the advanced gas-cooled reactor. At that same conference a motion was proposed by Arthur Scargill, which was passed by an enormous majority, that sought to eradicate all nuclear energy during the lifetime of the next Parliament. It needs a move of only less than half of 1 per cent. at the next Labour party conference to cause that to become permanent Labour party policy. If that policy were implemented, the loss of jobs would be massive immediately.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that he is making the biggest mistake of his life and that the consequences of any possible future accident will be suffered by his children and all our children? Will he recognise that the assurances that he has given about PWR being "sufficiently" safe and being "acceptably" safe are a ghostly echo of the sort of


assurances that were given in the United States before the Three Mile Island PWR explosion, which was extremely close to a disaster?

Mr. Walker: There are Opposition Members who rather share my view on nuclear energy and its safety, and perhaps no one more than the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). His educational background equips him rather well to understand these matters, and he has lived among a nuclear power station work force. Only a few days ago he wrote:
What I think the nuclear industry needs to do to widen its public support is expand its existing policy of more openness. This will add to the public's understanding of the issues, problems and advantages which the industry brings. The more open and informed the debate the better it will be for the nuclear industry".
I hope that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) will take note of that.

Sir Anthony Grant: My right hon. Friend knows the anxieties of some of my constituents in Cambridgeshire, which I have expressed to him. Is he aware that what he has said today will go a long way towards reassuring them? Is it not sensible to reflect, when considering safety, that every year about 5,000 people are slaughtered on our roads and that there is no protest against petrol by the Liberal or Labour parties? As the area most concerned is East Anglia, will my right hon. Friend give a firm assurance that everything possible will be done to preserve the environment in that area?

Mr. Walker: I know that my hon. Friend is aware that Sir Frank Layfield took great care to examine the environmental impact of Sizewell B. He eradicated certain proposals that he considered to be environmentally unsound. I can assure my hon. Friend that careful consideration will be given by the Departments of Environment and Transport to any matters affecting the environment of East Anglia.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Secretary of State accept that his statement is seen as a reflection of the commitment that the Government have had towards the nuclear industry since taking office? Despite the investment in the coal industry, the right hon. Gentleman's announcement demonstrates the Government's prejudice towards it. The Government have been in office for nearly eight years and during that period there has been no new order for a coal-fired power station. Although the Treasury wins the argument on this occasion, Sizewell B alone will not meet the capacity that will be needed for the production of electricity in the mid-1990s. When will the House be told where sensible energy will come from in the form of new coal-fired power stations?

Mr. Walker: If our view were that the coal industry should be eradicated and that the nuclear industry should take its place, I would not approve the investment of £2 billion over the next three years in the coal industry. The Government's investment policies have led to the coal industry's productivity surpassing anything that was even dreamed of by the Labour Government. I believe that in the near future applications will be made by the consideration that has ben given to various sites. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that any such applications will quickly be considered.

Dr. Michael Clark: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making the right decision for all the right reasons? I wish to ask him a question which I think would be asked by my near neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he were able to ask it. We know that the public at large do not have as much knowledge of nuclear matters as we would like them to have and that this relative lack of knowledge is exploited by those who have anti nuclear feelings. Will my right hon. Friend ask his Department to organise a campaign of public education so that much of their anxiety can be alleviated?

Mr. Walker: It is important that the facts are conveyed to the public instead of the distortions, especially in a locality that is involved in the nuclear industry. The industry itself, including the CEGB and the electricity authorities, have a duty to ensure that the facts are circulated.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Secretary of State has asked the House to have regard to the "true evidence." Will he acknowledge that the Layfield report is essentially incomplete? The committee was promised an account of the British design and none was ever presented to it. It remains unfinished. That means that no licensing could ever have taken place. Will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the facts that the working pressure and temperature of a PWR are so high and reaction time so short that human capacity cannot deal with it?
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's exhortation to depend on the nuclear installations inspectorate, and remembering its craven refusal to accept an investigation of weld assurance records at Hinckley Point, how the hell does he expect it to take on board the complex assessment that is necessary for a PWR design?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleagues have been giving their constituents an assurance that the House would have a second opportunity to discuss this issue on a reasoned and considered motion that would be open to reasoned and considered amendment? Will he have the courage now to leave his decision until the general election so that the British electorate can decide?

Mr. Walker: I shall be delighted if, during the next election, the Labour party continues with its policy to eradicate the nuclear industry. If it does so, it will deservedly lose thousands of votes on that entirely irresponsible policy. I have total confidence in the NII It has a fine record, and the inspector said so. The more debates that take place on this issue on the Floor of the House, the more I shall be delighted.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Those who live in my constituency and others who live in the area around it will welcome the extra work and jobs that will result from my right hon. Friend's decision. Will he consider the concern that has been expressed during the winter months about the price of electricity, especially among pensioners and particularly during the harsh weather that we have faced? What will be the effects of the Opposition's policy on electricity prices?

Mr. Walker: It depends on which of the Opposition's policies one chooses. If one chooses Mr. Scargill's proposal, which was greeted by a hefty majority, it would cost an enormous amount. If they phased out nuclear


power, as is the official policy, at present, it is considered that that would add about 15 per cent. to the cost of electricity. The industries concerned—they employ 800,000 people and have a high use of electricity—will be adversely affected.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Is the Secretary of State aware that this is a regrettable decision? Is he aware that we have heard comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who outlined a defect in the report? Is he also aware that the coal prices quoted in the report are hopelessly out of date and have been over-exaggerated? They would put a different complexion on the matter if they were brought up to date.
In what way does the proposed design differ from that of the Three Mile Island station? We cannot escape the fact that that station has been closed down for several years, is hardly likely to be opened for a long time and has cost a fortune. Is the Secretary of State further aware that since I have been an hon. Member I have heard Ministers on both sides—the right hon. Gentleman made a fair point—so exaggerate the benefits of nuclear power that the matter has almost become like a fairy story? I remember when we were promised nuclear power that was to be so cheap that it would not be metered. We have also heard the argument today that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman ask a question, please?

Mr. McGuire: I shall put it in the form of a question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Secretary of State also aware, on the matter of export orders, that if future orders are as good as the ones in the past, we shall not sell anything because our nuclear exports have been a disaster? Can the Secretary of State assure us that in the past—if I may use a homely expression—nuclear power advocates have been bragging on a pair of deuces. When shall we have the promised debate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall use a homely expression. An important arts debate is to follow this. I ask hon. Members whom I endeavour to call on the statement to put their questions briefly.

Mr. McGuire: One final point, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's contribution would have been somewhat shorter if he had been present for the statement. He would have heard the answers to some of his questions. I dealt with the cost of coal and what has happened since. I shall be interested to hear from Opposition Members whether, when they talk about the coal cost equivalent, they really talk about the international coal price. Will they deal with coal at the international coal price? If they did so, they would do immense damage to the British coal industry. Our nuclear industry has achieved massive export orders, of which I hope the hon. Gentleman is proud.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on bringing forward a policy that he and I first started in 1973? Thank goodness it has come to fruition at last. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House quickly what, at the moment, is the estimated total

cost for the power station? When does he estimate that it will be completed? Can he assure the House that research is still being carried out into the application of the fast-breeder reactor?

Mr. Walker: Work on the fast-breeder reactor is continuing. The latest cost estimate for Sizewell B is just in excess of £1·5 billion. The research programme will certainly continue.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the Secretary of State aware that supporters of the British nuclear industry, including those within the industry, such as the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board, have not all been enthusiasts for the PWR? What is the future of the British AGR programme? Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the limited resources of manpower and money that are necessary to develop the fast reactor programme will not be pre-empted by the decision?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. His views on the nuclear industry differ from the overall view of the party with which he is associated, which makes it clear that, in its view, nuclear power is not safe. Therefore, I suggest that, with his constituency interest, he must examine whether he can continue in alliance with such a party. Of course the AGRs will continue. On the AGR-PWR argument, the hon. Gentleman's party policy of making no orders for the foreseeable future would soon bring to an end the feasibility of going ahead with an AGR. The report clearly states that there is a cost advantage with the PWR and that it is safe. Alas, we have never obtained an overseas order for an AGR during a period in which the world has been building a great number of PWRs.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, today, he announced the biggest jobs boost for Teesside in 10 years and that it will be warmly welcomed by my constituents who work at Davy McKee, Cleveland Bridge, Darchem, and other companies? Is he further aware that their only nuclear fear is not simply the Labour party's conference resolution but the specific pledge of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to scrap Sizewell if a Labour Government come to power?

Mr. Walker: Certainly the policies propounded by the Opposition will be exceedingly bad for the north-east. As my hon. Friend knows, I was in his constituency and in the north-east about a week or so ago. There was no doubt about their anxiety that we should proceed with the policy.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Secretary of State spoke of an energy shortfall that Sizewell will not come on stream in time to meet. Will he acknowledge that there will be tremendous sadness on Tyneside at his failure to order coal-fired power stations, for which the power plant industry on Tyneside could have a hope of tendering? Such stations would provide employment on Tyneside for the power plant industry and for the people who work in coal production.

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have given considerable support in recent years to the procurement of some quite important overseas orders by industry on Tyneside and elsewhere. I am pleased that that has taken place. I have not rejected any application for a coal-fired station. I must wait for the


CEGB to make an application. It has been studying the sites. I have reason to believe that it will make such an application in the near future.

Sir John Osborn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his bold and realistic decision, but it relates to one type of reactor in one location. I welcome the fact that he has referred to wind, tidal and thermal energy. I should like him to emphasise that fact, because he also spoke about new coal-fired power stations. Will he bear in mind the fact that consumers of energy want a power programme that will give industrial users prices that are competitive with those in other countries? I hope that he will be in a position to make a statment about further reactors. After his views are put forward, I hope that it will not take five years to reach a decision.

Mr. Walker: I certainly share the last hope that my hon. Friend mentioned. Certainly, when further applications come in from the CEGB, they will be carefully and quickly considered. Progress has been made in looking at the potential of such enormous schemes as the Severn barrage scheme and the Mersey barrage scheme. The developments that are taking place in geothermal energy are exciting. Alas, they are unlikely to make any major contribution to our energy supplies for some decades to come.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State refrain from misrepresenting the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who is opposed to PWRs, and yet, like myself, is a vigorous supporter of nuclear power? Will the Secretary of State accept that the design of an AGR station is inherently safer than that of a PWR station? Do not all previous experiences point to that fact?

Mr. Walker: I completely reject that statement.

Mr. Frank Cook: On what basis?

Mr. Walker: On the same basis as it was examined by Frank Layfield, and on all the evidence. A massive number of pressurised water reactors are operating safely throughout the world. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opposition to the policy of his own party on nuclear energy. He must be very concerned, as is his right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, about the Labour party's ghastly policy towards Sellafield, which would absolutely destroy the prospects for that part of the country if the Labour party ever came to power.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Do not the protestations that we have heard today come ill from hon. Members who supported Mr. Scargill's strike to the hilt? Was that strike not intended to put the lights out in Britain and to leave the elderly and families with young children in the cold?

Mr. Walker: There is no doubt that the Labour party's energy policy is fully supported by Mr. Scargill.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that millions of people will be deeply angered by the decision that he has at last been forced to announce? For all his alleged understanding of the issue, the Minister cannot solve the problem of nuclear waste, and he knows it. So long as there is a nuclear industry there will be the problem of nuclear waste. Is the Minister further aware that the building of the Sizewell power station will increase the transport of nuclear waste through north London to Sellafield and that that in itself will meet massive

opposition? Finally, is he aware that the number of accidents that have been reported at Sellafield and other stations leads people to be very suspicious of chauvinistic claims about the safety of British nuclear power stations compared with others when, in reality, the industry is fundamentally dangerous? The Minister ought to be providing resources for the development of renewable energy sources. Finally—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already asked two questions.

Mr. Walker: I believe that nuclear waste problems can be dealt with in total safety I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should ask his right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment to take him on a visit to Sellafield and then he will be convinced, too.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A very important arts debate is to follow this statement. I shall endeavour to call all hon. Members who want to ask questions, but I should like to move on to the next business by 5 o'clock. Questions should be directed to nuclear energy not to coal.

Viscount Cranborne: I, too, greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision in principle. However, he will be as aware as I am that his decision will almost immediately trigger an application from the Central Electricity Generating Board to build one and possibly two PWRs at Winfrith in my constituency, which will involve at least 90 m high cooling towers in the middle of Hardy country. Will he assure me that aesthetic grounds will play a very important part in the decision about whether to allow such a development?

Mr. Walker: Any application will involve the appropriate planning procedures. I can only consider a specific proposal when I receive it from the CEGB.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Following my right hon. Friend's answer to the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), is my right hon. Friend aware that the importance of Sizewell orders has been emphasised as "crucial" by a number of key companies in Glasgow and Renfrewshire? Does he agree with me that his announcement will be warmly welcomed by companies such as Weir and Babcock? Is it not a disgrace that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) should wholly ignore the interests of heavy industry in the west of Scotland?

Mr. Walker: Anybody who examines the list of contracts that will be placed as a result of building this reactor will recognise the considerable immediate advantages to Scotland, the north and other similar areas and the long-term advantage of potential export orders.

Mr. Cecil Franks: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on reaching a courageous and bold decision. It will be welcomed particularly in west and south-west Cumbria. It will be welcomed not just in my constituency but also in the Copeland constituency where Sellafield is situated—as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) would confirm if he were here—and in the Workington constituency, which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would also confirm if he had the courage to do so. Will my right hon. Friend comment on


the Government's policy regarding nuclear energy in general and on the prospects for west Cumbria and southwest Cumbria in particular?

Mr. Walker: The impact on Cumbria and on Sellafield is very considerable. It is interesting to note that locally the Labour party has one policy but nationally it has another. The Labour party's policy decision to stop processing nuclear fuels from abroad, which is the main reason for the financing of the development there— [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says, he constantly proclaims locally that Labour party policy will never be put into operation. Indeed, a member of the Shadow Cabinet has said that breaking these contracts, worth millions of pounds, would involve the Government in huge compensation claims, as well as damaging our position as a trading nation. He went on to say:
I just cannot see a government, which will be looking for every pound that it can get to create new jobs, frittering away money like that.
When a member of the Shadow Cabinet says that the Labour party's policy on nuclear power would be to fritter away money, I think that the whole nation should take note.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Would not the average voter say that if nuclear power stations were not built coal-fired power stations would be needed to provide energy and that at least an equivalent number of jobs would therefore be needed to provide that energy? Is it not curious that the Secretary of State should say that the Opposition ought to provide estimates of the cost of future coal-fired power stations when he cannot provide estimates for the cost of Sizewell? [HON. MEMBERS: "He has done that."] No, he has not. He has not provided the projected costs. Is not the truth of the matter that the Layfield inquiry was set up in 1979 as a kind of sideshow to siphon off the protests of those who were against it, so that the Tory Government could wait until a time such as today to produce this report, because they are in favour of American technology instead of British coal?

Mr. Walker: We are in favour of an energy policy that gives us the same energy efficiency as France, Germany, Japan, the United States and, in future, the Soviet Union. The saddest feature about the hon. Gentleman is that he has only one interest—to see that the energy policy of this country is totally dominated by the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr. Andy Stewart: I have been listening very closely to my right hon. Friend's answer regarding the need for new coal-fired power stations. When he next sees the chairman of the CEGB, will he remind him that he has a site in Nottinghamshire? We have the coal; we have the productivity; and we have the Union of Democratic Mineworkers.

Mr. Walker: I shall certainly draw the chairman's notice to the remarks of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on reaching his decision, but may I ask him to clarify the impact on job creation that his decision will entail? Will he also use his good offices with the CEGB to urge early orders for further power stations, bearing in mind the need for such stations and the impact that they will have on the power station manufacturing industry, particularly in my area of the country? NEI-Parsons is situated in an area where there is already very high unemployment.

Mr. Walker: I am very well aware of my hon. Friend's concern, because he has been to see me on many occasions to argue the necessity for assistance in the development in those important industries. As for any application that is made by the CEGB as a result of its investigations of various sites for coal-fired power stations, I shall examine that application quickly and, I hope, effectively. On the job implications, about 13,000 jobs will be involved at Sizewell, but in the nuclear industry as a whole we are talking about 150,000 to 200,000 jobs.

Mr. James Couchman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision will be applauded by many people because he has looked to the time when our fossil fuels will begin to run down quite rapidly? People look forward to security of electricity supplies. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it comes ill from the Opposition parties, who have been whingeing on about the infrastructure and the need to give work to the construction industry, to complain about his decision?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I referred to the longer-term implications at the commencement of these exchanges and said that because we shall lose the benefits of our reserves of oil and gas in the North sea it would be incredible to eradicate a form of energy that is providing one quarter of our electricity supplies. Also in the long term, if the world were persuaded to eradicate nuclear energy, the impact on the Third world would be horrific.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be greatly welcomed in the north-west, where so many jobs in the nuclear industry are concentrated, and not least in my constituency where the headquarters of the National Nuclear Corporation are to be found? Does he agree that the consequence of a Government accepting the policy of the Labour party, or indeed the policy of the alliance enunciated by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), to phase out nuclear power would cost up to 1,000 jobs in my constituency and many more thousands throughout the north-west?

Mr. Walker: In fairness to the alliance, my hon. Friend should distinguish between Liberal policy, SDP policy and alliance policy. I think that each constituency will get a choice. On the job consequences for the north-west, I agree with my hon. Friend. I am pleased to say that next week I shall be visiting some of the factories concerned with those jobs.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1. Rate Support Grants Act 1987
2. Local Government Finance Act 1987
3. Grampian Regional Council (Harbours) Order Confirmation Act 1987.

BILLS PRESENTED

MATRIMONIAL INCOMES AND REMUNERATION (NOTIFICATIONS)

Mr. Hugh Dykes presented a Bill to empower and require regular notifications by male spouses of their incomes from all sources to their wives, and where applicable reciprocal notifications by wives in receipt of incomes not emanating from their spouses, and notifications of all or any changes therein: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT (PROTECTION OF BIRDS) (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Eric S. Heffer and Mr. Peter Pike, presented a Bill to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to extend the protection of captive birds to poultry and to make other povisions relating to captive birds And the same was read the First time; and orderd to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &C.

Ordered,
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.— [Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 7969/86 relating to the control of emissions from diesel engines be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.— [Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

The Arts

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Luce): I beg to move,
That this House congratulates the Government on the success of its arts policy which is resulting in an expansion of arts and crafts throughout the country and greater protection of the national heritage; approves the Government's strategy of increasing the inflow of funds to the arts from a diversity of sources; welcomes the tax changes, including the new payroll giving scheme, which will stimulate giving to the arts by individuals and companies; applauds the Government's continuing commitment to promoting sponsorship of the arts through the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme; endorses the new arts marketing scheme, designed to encourage a keener awareness of the benefits to the arts of good marketing; and acknowledges the political commitment shown by the Government in the form of record levels of public support for the arts.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Luce: This debate in Government time is a demonstration of the importance we attach to the arts. I propose to be as short as possible in order to enable as many people as possible to contribute to the debate.
This debate gives the opportunity to reflect upon the remarkable performance of our arts and crafts in this country, and the greater protection now available for our national heritage. It goes against the grain for the gloom-mongers to admit that anything is going right, but there is now overwhelming evidence of expansion and growth in the arts.
The number of arts centres has virtually doubled to over 300 since we came to power in 1979. British record companies and publishers are booming. Export sales of British books are over £340 million annually and royalties to British record companies from abroad are estimated at $500 million. Reportedly, a new museum opens every
fortnight and over 54 million a year now attend the 2,000 or so museums and galleries which this country boasts.Cinema attendances are up 72 million, and are growing. The number of youth theatres in England has soared to over 500, and there has been a healthy development in community and rural touring theatre.
With disposable incomes up substantially since 1979, this should come as no surprise. We are a wealthier society, and people are increasingly investing time and money to
enjoy and learn from the rich diversity which the arts offer us. People want something deeper than just the material things of life and are turning to the arts to enrich their
lives. As our economic growth continues, interest in the arts will grow too.
Central Government expenditure on the arts has also been rising. In both 1979 arid 1983 we gave a firm manifesto commitment to the arts to maintain Government support for the arts. We have honoured that pledge. Central Government expenditure on the arts is up
by 15 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80. These are record figures.
If the extra central expenditure following the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils is included. the increase in arts expenditure rises to 29 per cent. The successor local authorities rose to the challenge and came up with a total of some £14 million, more than filling the estimated £10 million gap left by abolition. This was on top of the big


increase in the local authority contribution to the arts since 1979 — all a bit embarrassing for the authors of the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend has referred to the Opposition amendment. The amendment in the name of alliance Members calls for various Departments to be brought together under a supremo Arts Minister. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me, representing the Society of West End Theatre, that the work he does as sponsoring Minister for the Arts, particularly on tax reform, is much appreciated? Will he also accept that a very important measure which will come to the House shortly is the Consumer Protection Bill? Will he undertake to keep a sharp eye on regulation and the code of practice on ticket overcharging, which are crucial to the future of theatre?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I know of the work which he does for the Society of West End Theatre. He has repeatedly drawn to my attention some of the society's anxieties. Certainly I undertake to take a close interest in the issue that he has raised.
This year's arts budget was ahead of the overall increase in Government spending in the year, and ahead of projected inflation. We unwound three quarters of the taper for abolition areas, and we can now proceed on an efficient basis with the building of the British library at St. Pancras. It is now reaching its peak years for expenditure, taking just over 6 per cent of my total budget.
There are, of course, always competing priorities within the arts budget. However, the increases I announced this year for the British library construction were specifically not at the expense of the rest of my arts budget. When finally complete, the British library will be a major, modern, national institution of which we shall have the right to be proud. All this must be judged against a broader perspective.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I have listened to what my right hon. Friend has said about the British library. Does he accept that it is getting a disproportionate amount of resources this year? As a consequence it is little wonder that some institutes, such as the British Film Institute, of which I am a governor, feel that they have not been as fairly treated as they might have been and, I think, would have been, had not so many resources been taken by the British library. Surely there must be a better way of funding it.

Mr. Luce: I acknowledge the remarks of my hon. Friend, who does a great deal of excellent work for the British Film Institute. Expenditure on the library project has gone up quite fast because we are getting to a key stage of its construction. As I have said, in the coming financial year it eats into the budget to the extent of just over 6 per cent. The point I sought to make was that we always have problems with competing priorities and that the extra money that I have been able to achieve, which is just under £20 million over the next three years, for the British library is extra and does not come out of the arts budget. I wanted to make that point because it is important for people involved with heritage and the performing arts.

Mr. Clement Freud: rose—

Mr. Luce: The more I give way, the more it eats into the debate.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister agree that if the money does not come out of the arts budget, it could have gone into the arts budget?

Mr. Luce: I always find the hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in the arts, slightly convoluted in his arguments. The point I seek to make is that the extra resources I have been able to raise to enable us to forge ahead efficiently with the British library will come separately from the Treasury and not out of the existing arts budget that I have allocated for next year.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: rose—

Mr. Luce: I should like to proceed; otherwise it is unfair to other hon. Members who want to contribute to the debate. When I reply, I can pick up any points that have been made.
Our strategy is to encourage the fuelling of the expansion of the arts from a combination of the public and the private sectors. To judge any Government's policy purely on the level of taxpayers' support for the arts—important though that is—shows tunnel vision and is too limited in its approach. Rather, we must look at the global picture, and assess how public money and the tax system together can be used to increase the total of resources flowing into the arts.
We want to achieve two objectives: first, to use taxpayers' money to attract as much money as possible for the arts from other sources; and secondly, to get the best possible value for money from the taxpayers' contribution. It is important that as much as possible of the money voted by this House should reach the arts bodies themselves, and as little as possible be absorbed by administration.
I am very glad that the Arts Council and the RAAs, all of which do an excellent job, are to examine their adminstrative costs. I believe that my own Department, the Office of Arts and Libraries, staffed by only 52 civil servants, offers excellent value for money. What a contrast that is to some of the continental arts bureaucracies
One of the best examples of our approach is the operation of the business sponsorship incentive scheme, which has raised over £11 million of new money, including £3 million of Government money, 70 per cent. of which has gone to arts bodies outside London. Four hundred businesses have sponsored the arts for the first time and 250 existing sponsors have increased their budget.
Business sponsorship in general is rising fast; the total arts slice of this expenditure is now estimated at more than £25 million. I have recently undertaken to continue the scheme for 1988–89.
The opposition parties appear to be lukewarm about business sponsorship and to shy away from commercial support for the arts—

Mr. Norman Buchan: rose—

Mr. Luce: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak in the debate, and I shall certainly respond. I hope that he will let me proceed for a while.
Of course, the contribution that business sponsorship makes is relatively small, but it is growing. Sponsors back a much wider range of activities than some critics suggest — from early music to jazz, from puppet theatre to the Tate gallery. That all adds to the resources available to the arts, and it should be encouraged.
Here is the chance for the Opposition parties to do just that, and to endorse wholeheartedly the principle of arts sponsorship.

Mr. Buchan: Does sponsorship really add to the money available to the arts? Has not the right hon. Gentleman said on at least four occasions that all future development and expansion must come from the private sector; and that his only commitment is to maintain the level of public expenditure? If so, more money will not come into the arts from private sponsors; rather, private sponsorship will be used instead of proper and sufficient public funding.

Mr. Luce: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot understand how his mind works. We are seeking an overall growth in resources, by whatever means possible, from the private and the public sectors.
My views on the matter are clear. The business sponsorship incentive scheme and the tax reliefs that are available for sponsorship are ways of adding to overall resources. They are not a substitute for other forms of funding. Indeed, my vision is of the commercial sector working ever more closely in harness with the public sector. There are examples of such partnerships in action in the theatre world. For instance, the Beck theatre in Hillingdon is now being run with much lower subsidies from the ratepayer as a result of a partnership with a commercial organisation, and Apollo Leisure Ltd. has shown similar enterprise in taking over the Empire theatre in Liverpool. That is a principle that could be extended to other local authority theatres.
We are also encouraging arts bodies to help themselves by better marketing. This year I have introduced an arts marketing scheme on an experimental basis to complement the BSIS.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to'go on, or the cohesion of my speech will be broken. Perhaps that is the hon. Gentleman's objective.
If it is successful, I shall build on and expand the marketing scheme. After all, the greatest income for the arts comes from the consumer and there is still much unexploited potential for attracting and entertaining audiences. As David Garrick, the great actor-manager said:
The drama's laws the drama's patrons give
And we that live to please must please to live".
Another element in constructing our framework of opportunity for the arts is our gradual remoulding of the taxation system to encourage an atmosphere of giving. We have reduced the minimum covenanting period from seven years to four. We now give relief to companies for one-off donations. We have established a contingency reserve of about £10 million, taking one year with another, for acceptances in lieu of tax. In April, the payroll giving scheme—give-as-you-earn—will begin, and the arts must take that important opportunity to exploit those reliefs. Most arts bodies have charitable status and are eligible for these benefits, so they must go out and exploit the new scheme to the full.
The momentum of this strategy can be sustained only in an atmosphere where the arts world can depend upon central Government core funding. I have no hesitation in repeating once more that Government expenditure on the arts will be maintained. The success of arts bodies in

securing additional private or public funding has not been and will not be penalised by the withdrawal of Government grant. That would be self-defeating.
Furthermore, I recognise the need of the arts for continuity and stability.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: As the right hon. Gentleman is approaching the question of Government funding, I want to make it clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not doubt the good intentions of the Minister in his attempts to extract from the Treasury the substantial sums that are needed to reinvigorate the arts. However, we are concerned about the strength of the right hon. Gentleman's dealings with the Treasury in trying to obtain essential funds. He has the support of almost the entire House in trying to obtain more funding for the arts than he has been able to extract so far.

Mr. Luce: I am trying to explain the important role that public funding has in the arts. For the next financial year I have received a 7 per cent. increase in my overall public expenditure, including that for the British library project. I accept that the library project takes up a large part of resources, but there is a 7 per cent. increase in my budget. I do not call that bad. It shows the importance that the Government attach to core funding in the arts.
Earlier, I was discussing the need for stability and continuity in the arts. Major arts institutions need to plan ahead. Like the Government, the Arts Council is now moving towards indicative figures for three-year funding for at least some of its clients, who will therefore be able to make long-term plans on a sounder basis.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has recently become the Opposition arts spokesman, following the sad demise of his predecessor the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan)—

Hon. Members: He is alive.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that my demise is greatly exaggerated?

Mr. Luce: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been touched by my remarks.
I must say that there seems to be some confusion about Labour party policy for the arts. What is Labour party policy, and what will it cost? Has the hon. Gentleman's party made any advance beyond its tired old concept of the public purse as the milch cow for everything? As for the alliance, its spokesmen may be able to enlighten us as to whether its policy is that expressed in the SDP Green Paper, that in the published Liberal party policy, or that to be found in its latest pronouncement, "The Time Has Come".
With three different policies, the alliance arts approach begins to remind me of the Schleswig-Holstein question. Only three people understood it; one has died, one has gone mad, and the other has forgotten.
There is a remarkable polarisation of views in this country concerning the arts. On the one hand, we have those who do not believe in any taxpayers' support for the arts. On the other, there are some prominent people in the arts world—I choose my words carefully—who assume that the world owes them a living and that Parliament and the Government are simply there to sign blank cheques for them. Such people are undermining their cause. There is a case for public support of the arts, and the arts world should make that case clearly, calmly and rationally.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Will the Minister explain, if the arts and especially ballet and opera are so good, why people who want to go there want to be subsidised to the tune of £20 a seat? If it is that good, people should be prepared to pay the full amount.

Mr. Luce: I know that my hon. Friend holds strong views on this subject and is one of those who represent one of the wings that have been mentioned, but I will say why certain areas of the arts should have public support.
The main reasons for central Government support for the arts are to promote excellence, to make that excellence more available to people around the country, to support our great national institutions—the national museums and galleries — and to foster the seedcorn of future talent. Of course, jobs and tourism are also important, and I do not in the least underestimate that, but the enrichment of the human spirit is the main justification.
John F. Kennedy said:
The life of the arts, far from being an interruption, a distraction in the life of a nation, is very close to the centre of a nation's purpose, and is a test of a nation's civilisation.
As Arts Minister, I visit as many arts bodies, museums. galleries, libraries and functions as I can—over 200 at the latest count.
I can see for myself the flowering of the arts in this country. I visited the Royal Shakespeare Company. It has just announced its most ambitious programme of productions ever. I visited the British Film Institute. It is opening its new museum of the moving image on the south bank within a year or so, thanks to the support principally of M r. Getty and the private sector.
I visited Nostell priory in Yorkshire which has been saved by the intervention of the National Heritage Memorial Fund set up by this Government in 1980. This great house, along with many others, is now preserved for the benefit of the nation.
I visited the Ruthin craft centre in north Wales, established with the help of the European Community and the Wales tourist board. It is a fine centre where craftsmen can practise their skills and market their productions at the same time. The national museums and galleries all have exciting plans for the future.
Of the many things I have already seen I will pick out only the Toshiba gallery of Japanese art at the Victoria and Albert, under the imaginative leadership of Sir Roy Strong. We all look forward to the opening of the new Clore gallery at the Tate next month by Her Majesty the Queen. The "Tate in the north" is due to open in Liverpool in 1988.
I visited the Leadmills in Sheffield, a tremendous hive of arts activities for young people, largely financed by the private sector. This arts centre is typical of the vibrancy of the performing arts today.
I have visited a large number of lively arts festivals, so well supported by their local communities, ranging from Edinburgh to Billingham to Brighton.
I visited the Burrell collection and the Kelvingrove collection in Glasgow. They will be centrepieces of Glasgow's European City of Culture celebrations in 1990.

Mr. Roland Boyes: The Minister has listed places which he has visited. A lot of those places relate to the performing arts, painting, and so on. He knows that I have a great interest in photography. I know that the Minister, at my invitation, visited the photographers' gallery, but he has never intimated that

photography is part of the arts world. If the Minister would mention his visit to the photographers' gallery it would do good for our newly formed photographic society and for all the people who are working in the industry.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the importance of photography which is expanding in this country. I was glad to have had the chance to visit the photographers' gallery.
I urge hon. Members on all sides of the House to back the activities of arts bodies in their own constituencies and to encourage them to take full advantage of the sponsorship incentive scheme and tax changes. Of course there are problems and pressures. They are largely the product of success. The rapid expansion of the arts has led to even sharper competition in claims for resources. There will always be more good causes than the Government can afford to satisfy.
I am impressed by the way that arts organisations are grappling with the challenges and are doing all they can to develop a variety of sources of income. They are determined to use both public and private sector money to expand. This Government are determined to do everything possible to enable them to succeed.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'deplores the Government's failure to invest adequately in the arts and media; in particular condemns the Government's budget allocation to the Arts Council of Great Britain for 1987–88 which represents a cut in funding in real terms; regrets that the Government does not appreciate the importance and impact of the arts on the economy and employment, or the true value of arts projects to the regions and communities in those regions, who remain it a relative disadvantage by comparison with Central London; and calls on the Government to take positive steps both to increase and widen the audience for the arts and to promote policies which offer a greater diversity of opportunity for artists and producers, and which widen choice for the audience or consumer.'.
I welcome this debate and applaud the Government for providing the House with an opportunity to discuss the arts. I believe, as far as I can establish from research, that this is the first time in more than 35 years that any Government have tabled a substantive motion on the arts, and I congratulate the Minister. I suspect that this afternoon that will be the last time that I congratulate him. Hon. Members on this side of the House — and, I suspect, some of the Minister's supporters—are baffled over why he managed to persuade the Government to table the motion. We are no wiser, having heard the Minister's speech, because he has nothing new to say.
We have heard the old, tired congratulations of himself and his Government, wrapping the success of artists and companies in the country around the Government's lack of policy. We have heard the Minister referring to a strategy and then failing to mention what that strategy was. The Minister really said nothing. The Government have very little — indeed, nothing—to be proud of in their arts policy. The Minister gave only two new elements of his policy, both of which he had previously announced. The first was the give-as-you-earn payroll scheme, which does not come into effect until next month anyway. He gave no estimate of the possible effect of that scheme. The


Minister will find, if he speaks to any director of a regional theatre, that there is great scepticism that even substantial arts clients will benefit much from that scheme.

Mr. Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman against it?

Mr. Fisher: I am not against it, but I do not think it will solve the problems in the regions. The Minister knows that and was unable to give any estimates.
The other interesting scheme that the Minister noted was the business sponsorship incentive scheme involving comparatively sizeable sums, from £9 million to £11 million of Government money. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, although 70 per cent. of it is spent outside London, the main regions that are benefiting are the south, the south-west, Scotland, the eastern region and the Greater London area. The Minister will recall a book recently published by the Policy Studies Institute on the whole problem of regional imbalance in arts funding. Those five areas take up the lion's share of arts funding, and that imbalance is what "The Glory of the Garden" strategy was seeking to address.
Inevitably, and hardly surprisingly, the business incentive scheme is growing and concentrating in those areas all the resources that have been kindly provided by industry. More than 50 per cent. of the cash goes to those five areas. The Minister must understand that this scheme, although revealing and assisting various interesting projects, far from addressing the imbalance in arts funding, will be increasing the imbalance indirectly and through its own relative success. The Minister must address himself to that problem and be candid enough to recognise that it is a problem.
The Minister referred to the wide range of activities that the scheme is encouraging, but he knows, because he has the figures from the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, that the main interest is in music and theatre, which account for 237 schemes. Literature accounts for five awards and sculpture for three. Two of those literature awards are in Cheltenham, which is not notably deprived of arts projects and resources. The Minister must understand, if he is being straightforward with the House, that this scheme will be unbalanced both geographically and in the sorts of arts projects that are likely to benefit.
I hope that the Minister will understand that and be more sceptical about the success, in the national perspective, of all our arts and media that will be addressed by that scheme. I thought he might have been providing himself in this debate with an opportunity to announce something substantial and attractive like an easement in the Arts Council grant. That was very optimistic of me, although he would have received congratulations on both sides of the House if he had done so, and we would have welcomed it. I suspect he might have done so, if he had had the nerve and been able to respond to my right hon. Friend and to fight his corner with the Treasury. At this time of year, many budgets are often underspent, through no fault of their own, and sometimes through bad administration.
The Secretary of State for Wales shakes his head. It may not be so in the Welsh Office, but I ask the Minister for the Arts to check with the Secretary of State for the Environment whether English Heritage is not substantially underspent this year to the tune of £9 million.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): The Welsh Office is not underspent, because I

have launched the largest programme of arts support ever undertaken in Wales, including the £15 million expansion of the national museum of Wales.

Mr. Fisher: Hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies would be more satisfied if the Secretary of State would do something to save the Sherman theatre in Cardiff. If the right hon. Gentleman will address himself to that, he will receive congratulations from both sides of the House.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: May we take it that Labour Members from Wales are reasonably satisfied, as not one of them is present?

Mr. Fisher: They are probably receiving petitions of anger and despair about the Sherman theatre at this very moment.
Will the Minister look into the rumour—I put it no higher than that—that English Heritage is substantially underspent, and will he lay claim to the funds involved as the Arts Council and the regional arts associations could spend £9 million very constructively?
I thought that the Minister might say something about his arts patronage scheme. On 13 January, when he opened the excellent Royal Academy exhibition of 20th century British art, he said:
I am exploring the possibility of a modest scheme which will enable government departments to brighten up their working environment by exhibiting promising work by young artists.
Reporting that speech, The Guardian said:
One idea is for prints of an original work to be made and distributed to those buildings most in need—notably local social security and unemployment benefit offices.
The Minister continued:
Contemporary art in this country deserves more encouragement from all of us.
The Minister seems to have difficulty recollecting that interesting initiative. What has happened to it? Why was there no reference to it in his speech today? Did he perhaps regret those off-the-cuff remarks at the Royal Academy and tell his civil servants quietly to drop the matter? As on so many other points, the Minister had nothing to say about that today.
The Minister attempted to associate himself and the Government with the popularity and success of artists and their work in this country, but nothing could be further from the truth. Last year, the Arts Council base budget rose from £110 million to £113·8 million. The increase was less than the rate of RPI inflation, so it was cut in real terms, to go with the cut in real terms that the Government have imposed on local authorities and their ability to respond to the arts needs of their communities. It is hardly surprising that the chairman of the Arts Council, Sir William Rees-Mogg, described it as
a blow to the arts in Britain.
That is the truth about Government funding of the arts, but it was not among the success stories described by the Minister.
It is scarcely necessary to weary the House with examples of major arts clients who are doing excellent work but who have either received no increase in funding, due to that cut in real terms, or have had their budgets and their valuable work cut back. Like the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Arts will no doubt say that this is to do with the international climate. He suggested it indirectly when he referred to overweening bureaucracies in other countries and praised his own Department for its leanness


and smallness. In fact, comparable countries spend far more on the arts. Italy spends the equivalent of £274 million on subsidised arts. West Germany spends £15·77 per person per year. Sweden spent £24·82 per person in 1980–81. The equivalent figures in this country are £7·20 for England, £6·90 for Wales— [Interruption.] Those are the PSI figures. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too much."] I thought that someone said, "Rubbish." Compared with other countries, they are certainly rubbish figures. The figure for Scotland is £9·30 per person per year. In France, arts funding is 0·86 per cent. of total Government expenditure. In the United Kingdom, it is 0·34 per cent. Why do the British Government, almost uniquely in Europe, refuse to fund the arts as other countries recognise that they should be funded?

Mr. Alan Howarth: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that France boasts a music inspectorate which spends more money and employs more people than does our Arts Council? Does he agree that it is better to have a sparse bureaucracy so that the available money can be spent on the arts?

Mr. Fisher: If that were only true, but the money is simply not there. More money is spent on music in Graz, Austria, than in the entire United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that that is nonsense and that funding for the arts in this country lags behind the rest of Europe where its importance is recognised. It is no wonder that morale among audiences, administrators and artists is at its lowest ebb and that the Government have succeeded in uniting the arts world against them as no other Government have ever done. Artists and administrators are angry at the Government's failure to fund the arts properly.
The Minister referred rather courageously to the British library, but the story is less wonderful than he suggested. The Office of Arts and Libraries, in conjunction with the Property Services Agency, is engaged in the largest civic construction project that this country has seen for years. The Opposition do not dispute that the British library should have a new, unified building, but it is strange coming from a Government who set the value of the public library service so low that 200 public libraries have closed since 1979.

Mr. Luce: Rubbish.

Mr. Fisher: Those are the facts.

Mr. William Cash: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a special interest and expertise in relation to libraries, as I believe that he was chairman of the Staffordshire library committee, but does he regard the cuts to which he has referred as the fault of the Government or the fault of the county councils or library authorities concerned? The amount of money made available has increased, to decreased, but it is a matter of the priorities given to these matters by the library services.

Mr. Fisher: Library committees and chief librarians throughout the country would love to respond to the needs of people using the library services, to provide decent book funds, new libraries and a whole range of new information and services, but they cannot do so. Two hundred libraries have closed, 500 fewer people work in libraries than in 1979 and book funds throughout the country have been

cut by 34·2 per cent. although public use of libraries has increased. That is an appalling record and the Minister should be ashamed of it. We await his annual report with interest. I hope that it will be more substantial than last year's puny document.

Mr. Luce: It will be several pages longer.

Mr. Fisher: I hope that they will be pages of apology to people who use public libraries and to the public library service.

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman seems not to realise that there are more books in public libraries than there were 10 years ago when the Labour Government were in office. What standards should we be seeking?

Mr. Fisher: It is easy to exchange figures, but the Minister has not responded to those that I have given, from the Library Association, that 200 libraries have closed and that book funds are 34·2 per cent. down on 1979. That is a disgraceful record. If the Minister tries to tell the public library service that he has done well, librarians of all political persuasions throughout the country will disabuse him. Any librarian in the country can tell him that they are strapped for money and for book funds.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that unless librarians go around burning books, even with declining budgets, the number of books will increase? Is not the Government's policy just the political equivalent of burning books?

Mr. Fisher: I agree with my hon. Friend.
The point that we were discussing when we were sidetracked was whether the British library is in safe hands. I believe that the public has a right to expect the Minister's Department, which is responsible, to be competent. Instead we find that in its first two stages the building is £112 million of public money over budget. Even when the Minister has gone back and looked at the accounts, started juggling the figures for VAT, increasing the allowance for inflation, indulging in the creative accounting of which he so disapproves when local authorities indulge in it, it is £25 million over budget. At such a rate, some experts estimate that the building may well cost as much as £1,000 million.
The Minister may say that it is structured in modules so that the Government can withdraw at any stage. I doubt whether that is correct. Will he confirm that the first stage, which is about to be completed, will not have adequate reading room facilities and therefore that it is inevitable that it will have to proceed to stages 1B and 1C? If that is the case, the modular system hardly has any credibility. Also, if that is the case, and stages 1B and 1C are inevitable, why have they not been costed and scheduled? Given that the Minister has lost control of the budget of that amazingly large building, does he not owe it to the House to account for it? It is hardly surprising that the Comptroller and Auditor General is currently looking into the matter. The House will await with some curiosity and apprehension his report on the state of the British library building.
There are other areas that we must deal with, apart from the British library. Perhaps the most immediate and serious is the whole question of museum charges. We have a Government who will not adequately fund museums but are happy to let the natural history museum and three other museums impose charges on 1 April. What a pathetic April fool the Minister is making of himself and


his Government. On that day—Conservative Members may not realise this—children who do not happen to have £1 will be turned away from those museums as will pensioners and the disabled who do not have £2 or a family with two children which does not have £6. Is that what the Minister wants? What a disgraceful record.
Is the Minister not aware of the fact that the original charter of the British museum proclaims proudly that its collection is intended
for the use and benefit of the public who may have free access to view and peruse the same.
The public may not do that under this Government, even though charges will cause a slump in attendance. When the national maritime museum in Greenwich introduced charges in 1985, attendance slumped by 36 per cent. The Victoria and Albert museum introduced so-called voluntary charges, although there is considerable pressure on visitors to pay, and it saw attendances drop by 40 per cent. Is that what the Government want? Surely any Government with any sanity would want to widen access, particularly among young people, and increase attendance, but not this Government apparently.
We must accept the fact that we are dealing with a Government who really do not care or value the arts. They have completely failed to address the need to widen audiences or participation in the arts. Black and Asian communities account for 4 million people in our society, and I am glad that the Arts Council is developing a policy to address the needs of that substantial number. In spite of that, they feel that under this Government their arts are arts that Britain ignores, and they have every right to feel that.
The Government's physical and financial neglect of the arts stems from their blinkered view of the arts. For the Minister and the Government the arts remain essentially dance, theatre, opera, orchestral music, sculpture and painting. I was glad to hear the Minister utter the word jazz. I have never heard him say that before. It was good that he recognises that the definition of the arts is a little wider. Jazz may be his personal interest and I am delighted to hear him say so, but I believe that the funding priorities of the Government and everything that the Minister said show an essentially 19th century view of the arts. I would have liked to include literature in the list but, unfortunately, the literature budget of the Arts Council has been cut by 43·6 per cent. in real terms in the past two years.
All the areas of the arts I have mentioned are vital and excellent means of expression and communication. They are the bedrock of our arts, but they ignore the realities of the past 50 years. The arts today encompass publishing, broadcasting, radio, television, video, film, fashion, design and the new technologies of satellite and cable. Every one of us in the House probably watches television and video more often and listens to more records and the radio than we go to live concerts or the theatre.

Mr. Boyes: I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend expand the list of arts areas. However, he concluded his list without mentioning photography. When my hon. Friend becomes the Minister for the Arts after the next election, whenever it may be, will he give me an assurance that he will be mentioning photography in his list in future and supporting it as an important art form in Britain?

Mr. Fisher: I willingly and gratefully accept the admonition from my hon. Friend and I add photography to the list.
Those are the realities of all our lives as individuals and the communities that we are fortunate enough to represent in the House. The independent commercial arts in the commercial sector are as much a part and as vital to our culture as all the subsidised traditional arts. In spite of that, we hear little about them from the Government. They are certainly not included in this Ministry. They should be, but they are not. We see before us not the Minister for the Arts, but the Minister for part of the arts. The Government do not seem to understand the full range and scope of the arts. They are out of tune with the reality of all our lives. They are out of date, and I hope that they will soon be out of office.
The Minister may be beginning to catch a glimmer of that in his understanding. He has recently commissioned, as he told the House, a study of arts economics. It indicates —I hope that it is true—that he is beginning to become aware of the fact that the arts are not a drain on the Treasury but are a plus. The arts are a major industry and employer. To see just how major he can look at many of the studies that are being produced. "The Economic Influences of the Arts in Cornwall" is being produced by Cornwall county council and South-West arts. "The Economic Importance of the Arts on Merseyside" was produced last year by Merseyside arts.
The institute of employment research at Warwick university had a recent study which showed that libraries,, arts and sports will be the fastest growing area of employment in the next 10 years, increasing by 30 per cent The Minister's own study will. or should, show him that estimates of arts-based tourism may be as high as £5,000 million a year. The arts employ literally hundreds of thousands of people in our community. The payback from the arts in VAT, national insurance and income tax to the Treasury probably means that the subsidised arts cost the country virtually nothing. Therefore, when the Minister says that he cannot afford to increase the subsidised sector of the arts, he misunderstands the economic impact of the arts and their industrial importance.
I was glad to hear the Minister refer, for the first time that I have known him do so, to the export earnings of the record industry in 1985 being $495 million. The same is true of the publishing industry which this year will top £2,000 million turnover and which last year had a net surplus in exports of £550 million. When our deficit on balance of trade in manufactured goods may well top £8,000 million this year, that is an area of our industrial life and economic activity that has a substantial surplus and is growing. The Minister would do well to remember that and, when responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Mr. Sheldon) in taking his case to the Treasury, I recommend that he presses that point because I doubt whether there is a single Department of State in the Government that is in balance of trade surplus in that way.
The next Labour Government will recognise those realities and bring together not only arts and libraries, museums, galleries and crafts, but bring with them publishing, photography, film, press, video, satellite and radio in one unified ministry for the arts and media. Our policies—

Mr. Buchan: Will my hon. Friend repeat his last sentence, because I was sacked for saying it?

Mr. Fisher: I willingly repeat it, and hope that the thunderbolt does not descend upon me, and that I do not reach a demise, in the Minister's terms.
Our policies will make a priority of widening the audience for such activities. They will make a priority of increasing choice for the audience and the consumer; of widening opportunities for the artist or producer; of ensuring that the freedom of expression and independence of the artists and producers is paramount; of devolving arts activities to the regions and to communities within those regions; of opening up our airwaves to community radio; of re-regulating television to increase the access of independent producers; and of establishing a British screen authority to give a firm foundation to an indigenous British film industry. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnston Smith) is not in his place, because I know that he has expressed an interest in the British film industry and the BFI.
Above all, we shall make the arts and media for the first time a statutory responsibility for local authorities and provide an element in the rate support grant to finance those activities. That step more than any other will transform the arts in the communities that we represent, and in regions throughout the country. Conservative Members have often said in the last few months that they support a devolution of the arts from central London. I hope that when we introduce those policies in the next Parliament they will back them to ensure that communities can respond to the needs that they undoubtedly have.
The Minister asked how much it would cost. No doubt Conservative Members are using their calculators—the technology may even come to them — and are also asking, "Where is the money coming from?" But, unlike this Government, we shall ensure that the money will come—

Mr. Luce: Where from?

Mr. Fisher: If the Minister will restrain himself for a moment, he will hear where the money is coming from.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The IMF?

Mr. Fisher: That is not one of the Arts Council's clients.
Unlike the alliance, we shall not get the money from tax incentives. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has talked about the arts a good deal recently outside the House, now that he is beginning to understand that there are votes in the arts. However, interestingly, he has never spoken about arts in the House, certainly not in this Parliament. Sadly, he is not in his place today. He may be in Truro, counting his votes before they are cast.
The right hon. Gentleman said in a speech to the SDP arts session in February 1986:
What the arts need is a tax incentive structure similar to that in the USA.
Like so much of what the right hon. Gentleman says, it was sadly ill-informed. Perhaps he should stick to subjects which he knows about something. Clearly, he knows absolutely nothing about the arts. I am more generous than my hon. Friends; I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman must know something apart from his own undoubted good looks, on which he is an expert, because

he gazes at them every day. Our arts need a United States-type tax system like a hole in the head. It is a system which every year sees major orchestras, opera houses, theatres and festivals go bankrupt. Last year, in California alone, the Oakland symphony orchestra and the San Diego orchestra went into liquidation because of that wonderful tax incentive scheme that alliance Members so praise and laud.

Mr. Freud: Oh, no.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Member says, "Oh, no." We have another alliance split. The Liberal party says, "Oh, no," and the right hon. Member for Devonport says, "Oh, yes." As the Minister says, it is difficult to know what the alliance stands for on any subject.

Mr. Dicks: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the orchestras had to close down because people did not want to pay an economic price to listen to them play?

Mr. Fisher: Now we have a Tory split. Again, the public will not know whom, to believe—the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) or his right hon. Friend. They will be confused. At least the Labour party has a credible policy. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that the party is solidly and proudly united behind that policy.
The Secretary of State for Wales—I am glad that he is still in his place, and I appreciate his attendance—asked where the money was coming from. Our funding will come from a wide variety of sources. Some will come from central Government on the basic arts budget. There will be a new one-off capital fund for housing the arts, because so many of the arts buildings in our constituencies are in a dire state of repair. Money will come from the rate support grant, and from local authorities responding to the needs of their communities. It will also come from audiences and from the public, and an expansion of arts provision will lead to expanded income for arts clients.
The money will also come from private investment. We shall encourage local authorities to support the arts in a wide and plural way, not only through grant and subsidy as at present but through loans, investment and underwriting of activities. Local authorities will act not only as providers through grant and subsidy, but as enablers of activities. If Conservative Members wish to complain about that, I shall be interested to give way to any of them. There will be a substantial increase: they will see how substantial it will be.
While this Government persist in their blinkered approach that the arts are just the subsidised arts—and very badly subsidised at that—their priorities are wrong. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) has been very quiet. No doubt he will soon be talking about military bands. He has done such a superb job for military bands that they are funded by the Government to the tune of £48 million a year. There can be no hon. Member who represents a constituency so superbly as the hon. Gentleman, who has succeeded in getting £48 million for his own peccadillo while the rest of the music world longs for such funding. Under this Government, because of the ingenuity of artists and administrators, the arts will survive. But that is no thanks to the Government, and opportunities will be lost.

Mr. Richard Alexander: At a conference on the arts last week, the hon. Gentleman spelled out the


Labour party's policy in some detail. One of the planks that he gave his audience was that spending on the arts would be doubled. Is it not interesting that he has not repeated that pledge today? Or has he abandoned it already?

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman was in attendance at that conference for only a few minutes. The conference was organised by the Arts Council but, apart from a speech by the Minister, it was sadly ignored by Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) gave some figures for our spending plans, but I did not, although I talked about a substantial increase. The hon. Gentleman's memory has played him false.
The arts need from the Government not only funding —even in its present inadequate form—but a lead. It is interesting that yet again — the Minister and I have debated this in the past—there has been no vision from the Government. We heard about strategy, but the only words that I could grasp that had anything to do with strategy were that the Minister would ensure continuity and stability. What a sterile and depressed lead that is to give to the arts. All that he is offering is continuity and stability —the continuity of more cuts, I suspect, and more reduced funding.
The arts and the media are our means of expressing and defining our culture and ourselves as individuals. They are a means of criticising and challenging our values, our beliefs and the way in which we see each other. They are the most concentrated way that we as a nation can express what we believe in, what inspires us and provokes us, what reminds us of our past and gives us hope for the future. That is a word that the Minister could not offer. He could not offer any hope to the arts. We live in a society with very little hope because of the new realism that has been forced on it by the Prime Minister.
We are faced with a depressing and bleak future. However, there is an alternative. People's opinions are important. They can be expressed and the arts give a chance for communities and individuals to express themselves, to define their culture and their relationship to each other and to give them some hope, dignity and possibility for the future. The arts cannot do that while the Government are here and refuse to fund audiences or artists in expressing those hopes for the future. Under a Labour Government, the arts will be able to begin to do that, and will do that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. This is a short debate and short speeches might be appropriate.

6 pm

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I will try to obey your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, first on behalf of all hon. Members, I should congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on a maiden speech from the Opposition Front Bench. Rarely has there been such a maiden speech containing a string of perorations interspersed with a mass of contradictions. Conservative Members have a fond affection for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central because we still hold his father in the highest regard. When the hon. Gentleman speaks, he still betrays that he is a

little bit of a chip off the old block. His courtesy and the real demonstration that he was not educated at Grange Hill endear him to us.
The strength of arts policy over the years has been the fact that it is largely bipartisan. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central went a long way towards destroying that this afternoon. However, on one point I can go along with him. There is a measure of agreement on both sides of the House with the recommendations on museum charges made by the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts in 1981–82. That all-party Select Committee report expressed the view that charging was acceptable, but that there should be certain categories of exemption. It should be up to individual institutions and their trustees to decide whether charges should be made, but it believed that the categories to which the hon. Gentleman referred should be exempt.
I want to thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister not just for ensuring that we have the first debate, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, for some 35 years on a substantive Government motion on the arts, but also for what he has done in battling valiantly in difficult times. He has not achieved all that I should have liked him to achieve, but, by Jove, he has achieved a great deal.
All Conservative Members can be modestly proud of the Government's record. At the risk of wearying the House — I shall not cite more than two or three examples—we should remind ourselves of some of the milestones that have, with all-party support, been erected during the past eight years: for example, the creation of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which was a very significant achievement, and the transformation of the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Commission into the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, again with all-party enthusiastic support and a very much bigger budget. We must also remember the Government's response to the recommendations in the Select Committee report on the in lieu provisions. We now have a much more satisfactory and workable solution to that problem.
I can point to a specific example in my constituency. The Government have saved Weston Park, one of the most gracious and elegant English country houses which, because extra money was made available a year ago, has now been saved, with its contents, for the nation. A private trust has been set up so that Weston Park can continue to be enjoyed and seen by many people.
All these are significant achievements and my right hon. Friend the Minister has been particularly successful in generating extra enthusiasm for the whole concept of business sponsorship.
However, it would be churlish if, in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister, we did not remember that he is the fourth Minister for the Arts in the past eight years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the noble Lord, Lord Gowrie made significant contributions. Their work has been widely recognised and welcomed. They succeeded Ministers from previous Labour Governments who also made notable contributions. The right hon. Baroness Lee, whom I had the good fortune to defeat in 1970 to become a Member of this House, was the first Minister for the Arts. I always like to think that we have a strong bond


between us in our common love of the arts. Baroness Lee, Lord Donaldson and others, have, in an all-party sense, made their contributions.
When we consider the subject, we are bound to agree that there has been an advance since the Select Committee took evidence in 1981 from Sir Kenneth Cork, the then chairman of the Royal Shakespeare theatre. He said:
The very small call we can make on the National purse in terms of the economy as a whole is justified because of the dividends we bring to the country's economy through the expenditure of people coming to the theatre, and outside the theatre, but Her Majesty's Government does not recognise this, and appears to look upon us as a lunatic charity.
We have come some way since then. There has been real progress and Sir Kenneth would be unlikely to make that statement if he came before a Select Committee of the House now.
Not that that means that all is well or that everything is right. My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the British library and the money that he has been able to extract from the Treasury — would it were more. The fact is that money spent on the arts is about the most cost-effective of Government spending. People who talk about subsidies in disparaging terms make me very angry. In the German states the prince provided money to enable the opera to flourish in his state, and in the 19th century donations were made by rich people in this country to the arts and a similar thing happened in the United States. Indeed, there has never been a time when the box office has paid for everything and there has never been a time when great collections have been amassed without donations from individuals or Governments.
There is a real need for sizeable contributions from central and local government. That need will remain. My right hon. Friend the Minister has recognised that. I am particularly glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is present. All Conservative Members are very sorry that he is not standing at the next general election because he has done more for the arts in the Principality than any other Secretary of State for Wales. The Principality will, for generations to come, have cause to be thankful for what he has been able to spend in the Principality from public funds. He is rightly proud of that, as we all are.
Having said that, I want to be mildly critical, because many things still remain to be done. As I have said, arts spending is the most cost-effective way of spending public money and the returns are enormous. The budget in national terms is minuscule and we could do with more money. I hope, for instance, that very shortly the Minister will be able to ensure that the Royal opera house can go ahead with one of the most imaginative plans that it has been my good fortune to see for a very long time. It will rely very largely on private funding, but it also needs ministerial support, blessing and encouragement. I hope that my right hon. Friend will refer to it, if only briefly, when he replies.
The all-party arts and heritage group visited the Royal opera house just before Christmas and we were all very excited by its plans. That underlines the aspect of consensus. However, I was slightly surprised at the rebuke delivered by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) in absentia.
When we produced the Select Committee report in 1982, we had all-party support, ranging from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton). That spans a wide political spectrum. The Committee included Mr. Christopher Price as Chairman. We all called for some American-style concessions. I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has got it wrong, just as I hope that he got it right when he talked about policy for which the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), whom we all miss, was sacked from the Labour Front Bench.
I should like now to consider some of the things that need to be done. I shall single out a few of the Select Committee's recommendations which were made several years ago but which have not been properly recognised. We called for the creation of a
Ministry for the Arts, Heritage and Tourism…to absorb the work of the Office of Arts and Libraries and to concentrate in the hands of one minister of Cabinet rank all central government responsibility for the arts, libraries, film, broadcasting, heritage and tourism.
That was an all-party recommendation. Of course, it does not lie with my right hon. Friend to implement that recommendation. It would be discourteous and ridiculous in the extreme to rebuke him for the fact that it has not been implemented. I hope that he will convey to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the fact that many hon. Members still believe that that is the right way forward.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House how many recommendations were in the Select Committee report and how many of them have been implemented by the Government?

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next remark. I was going to make the point that there were 77 recommendations. How many have been implemented is an impossible question to answer with total precision because bits of recommendations have been adopted.

Mr. Buchan: indicated assent.

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is nodding vigorously. Some of the recommendations have been adopted more or less in their entirety—such as the in lieu recommendations — but many others could be implemented to the benefit of the arts in general.
Although my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has started to report to the House, the reports are not quite of the length and detail which we had in mind in annual arts White Paper for which we called.
The Select Committee said that six months' formal notice should be given to an arts organisation if there was to be a significant alteration to its level of public grant. If that recommendation were implemented, it would relieve the anxiety of many people. My right hon. Friend the Minister has made statements from which I infer that he is sympathetic to that approach. I hope that we shall move quickly in that direction.
I do not wish to prevent other hon. Members from taking part in the debate by making too long a speech; I do not want to follow the example of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. In recommendation 29 the Select Committee said:
The skill and expertise of the Crafts Council should be called upon by the Manpower Services Commission when devising schemes for the training of the unemployed and of young apprentices.


It is time that t he crafts were given a proper recognition. There is nothing demeaning about following a craft — indeed, quite the opposite; there is everything noble and proper about doing so. The way in which we almost look down upon those who work with their hands, as distinct from those who apparently work with their brains, does none of us any credit. To be a craftsman, one must have an intuitive sense and a keen brain. I have been involved in helping to persuade one or two organisations with which I have a connection to sponsor a new craft fellowship scheme called the William Morris craft fellowship. This year, we have selected four young people —three men and one woman—who will follow a course for six months and learn a range of new crafts. We hope that they will become leaders in their companies and not merely supervisors but high-grade supervisors who, by their infectious enthusiam, make others want to follow the crafts.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in hoping that those people also become Socialists, like William Morris?

Mr. Cormack: If William Morris were alive today, he would not recognise on the Opposition Benches the ideals for which he strove. The hon. Gentleman left himself open to that comment.
I hope that the Government will realise that, in supporting the crafts, they will be doing many things. After all, all the grants through the heritage memorial funds and elsewhere are of little benefit unless there are the craftsmen to do the restoration and people who have skills to pass on to future generations. A great deal of public money could be used profitably—I mean "profitably" in every sense—in encouraging young people to go into the crafts, working in environments that could only help to uplift them.
I trust that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have early discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General and others to ascertain what can be done to encourage more people to go into the crafts —not just young people but those who find themselves unemployed later in life. They often can learn a craft or skill and so bring back a new meaning, purpose and hope to their lives. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central talked about hope. This is a good example of where one can bring hope to individuals.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I have listened with interest to my hon. Friend. I share his view on the importance of encouraging good craft training. Does my hon. Friend feel that the new city technology colleges might offer the opportunity to establish centres of excellence in craft training? That might be among their strengths.

Mr. Cormack: I certainly would not rule that out, but I must admit that that idea had not occurred to me. This is not to decry the concept, but I would much rather that money were put into cathedral workshops and such places to build true craft centres in an environment in which young people have the very best of the past all around them, and the challenge and vision that that presents.
I wish to obey the injunction to make short speeches, so I shall not continue much longer. We have much to he pleased about, although nothing to be complacent about. I am glad that, at the end of the debate, it is unlikely that

there will be a major Division. That is good because certain issues transcend petty party differences. Since the war, there has been reasonable consensus which was only challenged—jokingly, I hope—by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is almost right. It is true that there has been bipartisanship between the hon. Gentleman and two or three others, but there is a big division when it comes to that bunch of moronic philistines on the Conservative Benches with whom he has associated.

Mr. Dicks: Quite right.

Mr. Cormack: I gather from noises off that my hon. Friend accepts that rebuke as a compliment, but I think that the majority of my hon. Friends do not The Government do not deserve that stricture. No Government are perfect in all respects of their policy. Although I have not been backward in criticising the Government from time to time, I believe that we have made significant achievements in the heritage and the arts, and my right hon. Friends the Minister for the Arts and the Secretary of State for Wales and all their colleagues have every reason to be proud of them. I congratulate them on what they have done.

Mr. Clement Freud: If too, congratulate the Government and thank them for this debate—the first in 35 years, which is longer than some of us have been Members. I should like to take up one point made by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). He said that he hoped that there would not be a major Division. I do not know what a "major" or "minor" Division is, but a motion
That this House congratulates the Government on the success of its arts policy
must be resisted by all those who feel that the Government deserve scant congratulations On their arts policy.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is it not a major division when the Liberal party wants to abolish the Arts Council and the SDP wants to retain it?

Mr. Freud: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, but it was right for him to ask the question. I shall deal with it later in my speech. On something as fundamental as self-congratulation on an arts policy, those who feel that congratulations are not due have a duty to vote against the motion, which bemuses me.
I had lunch today with the great and good Lord Goodman and he asked me, "What is happening in your House this afternoon?" I explained this motion to him and told him that the Prime Minister headed the cast list of those who supported it. He said, "I hope that the Prime Minister has taken out thunderbolt insurance." One cannot blame Lord Goodman's sentiments, for it would be hard to find any director of films, theatre or museums who felt that the Government deserved congratulations on the success of their arts policy — not Sir Peter Hall, David Puttnam, or Sir Roy Strong. Not infrequently I meet the Minister at arts venues and he knows that there is little admiration for his Government's policies. I am saying not that the arts are unable to look after themselves, but that they deserve more support than they are currently getting.
I do not wish to personalise, but when one looks at the names on this motion—the Prime Minister, the Foreign


Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—one realises that it is not exactly a list of supporters of the arts. The Minister is lucky to have got into the list in sixth place. It would have been depressing had he been left out altogether.
We are probably the only country in which the office of Minister for the Arts is combined with the office of Minister of State, Privy Council Office. That is as unrealistic as having one person in charge of the police and broadcasting—which, of course, we also have.
I should like to talk about the policy of the alliance. We have frequently said that we should create a broadly based Ministry of the Arts and give parliamentary responsibility not only for photography, but for films, theatre, broadcasting and recreation to one Cabinet Minister instead of making those things the less favoured responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment, the Home Office and the Department of Education and Science.
The Minister had his little weekly rent-a-joke at the expense of Liberal policy, SDP policy and alliance policy. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel ) wanted to know why one of the parties in the alliance was originally in favour of an Arts Council while the other one was not. The difference in opinion was quite simply on the constitution of the Arts Council. Both parties in the alliance were totally in favour of the arm's-length principle.
Both parties wanted an Arts Council that was better funded and more reactive and that spent more money outside London than in it. Whether this was to be a boosted regional authority or a stronger London base was a matter upon which, until we became an alliance, we had our own separate arts policies. We did not publish our alliance policy until "The Time Has Come" came out in January. The Minister spoke about that publication and has possibly read it.
The problem with the Government's arts policy is its short-termism. We have suggested that there should be endowments to provide long-term stability rather than have our arts staggering from crisis to crisis, which is what is the current scene. That would avoid theatres and centres of art having to spend money at the end of the financial year so that the cupboard is bare when the following year's application is made. I know that similar spending occurs in many constituencies where at the end of the financial year all the council houses suddenly have their front doors painted in a new colour because there is no other way to incur instant expenditure and to exhaust the budget before applying for more money.
If arts funding were properly planned, the rewards would be given to saving money and not to spending it. That is crucial. Our policy, which is enshrined in print, would be to double in real terms the funding of the arts over the lifetime of our first Parliament. We are greatly in favour of sponsorship when it comes along, but one must accept, as the Select Committees accepted over the years, that sponsorship can only ever provide a small percentage of the money that is needed by the arts. Sponsorship is the sizzle, but it can never be the steak.
A system of public domain royalties as practised in Italy and France is attractive. Under that system a playwright or an author, when he comes out of copyright, does not immediately allow his work to be used or

published without payment. We hope to introduce a system whereby for a play that is out of copyright the royalties, at a lower percentage if the artist is dead, could go into the public domain and be used for the training and support of young people seeking to pursue a career in music, the theatre, or whatever it was that the out-of copyright artist created.
I should like to speak about centres of excellence in which the authors and directors currently seem to make much more money than the centres, which take all the risks. I do not for one moment accuse Trevor Nunn or Sir Peter Hall of making more money out of "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" or "Amadeus" than was earned by the theatre, but we are persuaded to emulate the terms of contract currently given to the directors of museums.
If the director of a museum, who is a well-paid civil servant, writes a book or makes a speech while he is a director, the moneys go to the theatre or museum that he represents.

Mr. Buchan: I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman has got that right. It is possible if it is like the recent cases in connection with the Ashmolean museum or in relation to the Burrell collection that was sought by the curator, but those cases are different. If someone like Sir Michael Levey writes a book, as Sir Michael has done recently, on an arts subject, he will receive the copyright royalty payments in the same way as anyone else. Surely the crucial thing about the dramatic producer is that he helps part of the creative process and, to the extent that his production is part of the creative process, I am perfectly happy to allow an element of copyright to remain with him in addition to the payment for his work as a professional director.

Mr. Freud: I do not contradict what the hon. Gentleman says. Even in the best of all worlds one cannot introduce retrospective legislation. It is right that if somebody is well paid and has the interest of his centre of excellence at heart, what he does during the time that he is under contract should substantially benefit his place of work.
The Minister has talked about the British library's extra grant of £20 million. I am concerned about that. The library has harmed the other museums and libraries in that they too could have done with that support. The Minister will have some trouble justifying the emergency payment, for I have yet to meet anyone who knows enough about it. What will be the running costs? What will be the number of staff and on what sort of contracts will they be? I am enthusiastic about the British library, but I am concerned that an awful lot of money is being used that would otherwise be available to the arts at large.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has made an important policy statement and I want to make sure that I understand it. Is he saying that it is alliance policy that the director of an institution, such as a museum or the National theatre, would not be able to have any earnings through his writings or his other creative talents? That is a revolutionary step if the hon. Gentleman is really suggesting it.

Mr. Freud: I can tell the unrevolutionary right hon. Gentleman that there are many contracts in which museum directors are not paid for such work, and the


royalties that they receive while directors of the museum go to their museum. I was simply stating that this is something of which I would approve.
When I was education spokesman, I used to argue that the microcosm of Liberal education policy was the Open university, in which there is something for everyone; one can be young or old, well or handicapped, a city dweller or living in the country. The Open university gives people a chance and then a second chance and is a marvellous instance of what our education policy is about.
Now that I speak for the arts, I feel that the Edinburgh festival is something that should be looked at with care and consideration, because in Edinburgh during the festival good things happen that should be happening in the arts around the land. The local authorities are helpful, the landladies are co-operative and there are fewer housing problems because people support the Edinburgh festival. There may be specific problems, but what we see in Edinburgh, is good. The city embraces the arts—music, orchestra, ballet, opera, concerts, theatre, people dancing in the streets—and lets them perform in waiting rooms that are not needed.
Not only should we give such encouragement to the arts. We must create a climate in which the arts can flourish and we have to accept the people who take part in the arts as respected members of the community. Perhaps that is where we are most wrong. In France, Germany or Italy, a competent itinerant musician is a respected member of the community. He can get a mortgage, borrow money and have a bank account. Such things are extraordinary difficult in this country for artists because we treat artists of quality as if they were itinerants first, artists second. That is the wrong attitude.
There are items to be welcomed in the motion. One should not spend one's entire speech knocking it. I welcome the sponsorship scheme, although there is something ugly about congratulating oneself on having found other people to discharge one's responsibility. I quite welcome the marketing scheme, although I am sorry that the limit is £10.000, so that it is confined to people who can produce half of that —£5,000. On the whole, those who most need marketing are probably those who least have £5,000.
An alliance Government would look at the basements of national galleries and museums and consider raising money for the living arts from the dead wood that is often so expensively preserved from death watch beetle. We would make it a duty on developers to spend I per cent. of their development costs on arts-related projects, be it sculptures, painting or proscenium stages. We would look at the millions of pounds that should go to the arts but find their way into Christie's and Sotheby's. The latter employs the former Arts Minister, who could not cope on his Government salary, at a salary of £ 150,000 a year, mostly from money made by commission on selling bits of our national heritage.
While we are cleaning up the City, it might be time to clean up the arts market, because nowhere will one find more laundering of money than takes place in the big arts auction houses. It is absurd that, while the City is trying to identify holders of small percentages of company equities, the identity of people who buy a £7 million painting can remain anonymous.
There is no lack of energy in the arts. The apathy and lack of understanding come from the Government and from local government, which is often unco-operative and

unsympathetic. The Treasury insists on taxing the performing arts and slowly killing the goose that lays such golden eggs. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), with whom I debated theatre subsidy some weeks ago, is plain that he is against subsidy and has never found any good reason for it. Let me try to give him one good reason.
The town of Leicester has a brilliant theatre. Last year, it produced the musical "Me and My Girl", which was an outstanding success. The theatre is a client of the Arts Council and is well subsidised by the local authority. "Me and My Girl" could have run commercially for nine months, if not a year. However, is it right for a local theatre to receive money and present to the local people the same successful musical month after month? It is right that after a month or two a successful show should be taken off and replaced by other plays so that the same people can go to the same local theatre and witness other interesting productions.

Mr. Dicks: Would the hon. Gentleman take the same line if Leicester city football club, whose games are watched by many thousands of people, were in poor financial straits? Would he be advocating that the local authority or the Arts Council be subsidising that? My guess is that he would be saying no, because he would expect the club to survive on getting people to come into the ground and pay the economic cost. What is wrong with that?

Mr. Freud: By combining the arts and recreation, which an alliance Government would hope to do, all the responsibilities for civil entertainment would be under the same Minister. He would look with as much compassion at an ailing football club as he would at an ailing theatre.
The criterion would be quality and the wishes of the participating community.

Mr. Tony Banks: I suppose that there is something appropriate about "Me and My Girl" running for nine months, but does not the hon. Gentleman feel that a good performance of "Me and My Girl", like "Guys and Dolls" at the National theatre, has a great deal to commend it?

Mr. Freud: That is absolutely so, but it is wrong in one location in which there is a dearth of theatres and a substantial number of people who want to go to see a variety of theatrical productions.
An alliance Government would look with great care at the creation not just of enterprise zones for industry, but of enterprise zones for the arts. There is no reason why, for instance, key housing should not be given to an important artist — or photographer — rather than to someone who has a key job in industry. In our amendment we talk of the Government tinkering, and we use that word deliberately because there is not one decent, cohesive, long-term policy that will do more for the arts than save the Government short-term embarrassment.
There is no promise to legislate against philistine local authorities, which seem to be legislated against in respect of all other shortcomings. We are now on our fifth local government Bill. I would welcome a Bill which forced local authorities to contribute to the well-being, via the arts, of their people. I would welcome a Bill that realistically protected authors' and composers' copyright. I am convinced that in the Government's eyes the arts has a low position on the totem pole; it is our intention to raise that and put this in its proper place.

Mr. David Crouch: I was intrigued to hear about the lunch conversation that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) had with my friend Lord Goodman. I was further intrigued by the advice that he gave to be passed on to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about thunderbolts and insurance. Today, I lunched with no fewer than seven bishops, including the Bishop of Durham—I have not taken out any insurance—and here I stand about to make quite a gentle speech.
Being a gentle man and not having been at Oxford this afternoon—that is why the House is so empty—I might have put down an amendment, although I am quite sure that it would not have been called. It would not have been all that critical, but I would have said in that amendment that the House regretted that the Government had not felt able to find more money for the arts, but would promise to do better next time. That is not to say that I do not congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved. I shall not go over the catalogue of what has been achieved because it has been said well enough, even by the Opposition spokesman, and certainly by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack).
We must guard against the danger of neglecting the arts. We would be neglecting one of our greatest assets if we did that. We have achieved a lot in painting, sculpture, literature, drama, opera, ballet—

Mr. Boyes: What about photographers?

Mr. Crouch: —in television and in the art of photography. We have helped ourselves a lot in the process. We have earned respect, we entertain our visitors, we entertain ourselves, we earn currency and we pay the Government a lot in taxes. We put too much tax on those who attend theatrical performances. We pay a good return to the Government by attracting visitors to Britain, and pay a good return in reviving ourselves. The arts are entertainment, and life without entertainment is very dull. It is necessary to revive ourselves by a flourishing business of art in our lives.
We have given ourselves a pride in our achievements, our great works of art and great performers in the arts over many years. Even in recent years this is so. I mention just a few names—Henry Moore, Michael Tippett, Graham Sutherland, John Piper, David Hockney, Benjamin Britten, Andrew Lloyd-Webber, Laurence Oliver, Peggy Ashcroft, the Redgraves. I mention all the Redgraves, even the latest grand-daughter of Michael Redgrave, who is now performing in a star role in London. It is wonderful how our theatrical families continue the great tradition and heritage of acting which we, perhaps alone in the world, possess above any other nation.
Other great names have been mentioned this afternoon —Peter Hall and Trevor Nunn. We owe a great deal to them. We may criticise them because they criticise us, but it is a free country. It is reasonable for artists and people in the theatre to have a view, even on the financing of the arts.
Another great name was Margot Fonteyn. I remember seeing her dancing Swan Lake and afterwards being taken to see her with a friend, who was a great friend of hers, in her dressing room—a minute dressing room—which still exists today for the great stars at Covent Garden.
Members of Parliament complain about the space that is given to them when they come to this place for the first time. They should see where Placido Domingo sits or where Margot Fonteyn sat—a tiny little room for some of the greatest entertainers in the world. I hope that that will be put right when the rebuilding and redevelopment programme of the Garden takes place.
I should mention too, because there are Welshmen somewhere in the House I hope—of course there are, the Secretary of State for Wales is present—the great Sir Geraint Evans, who is one of our greatest opera stars. I shall mention, last but not least, a great opera singer who celebrated her 95th birthday this week, Dame Eva Turner. [Interruption.] I do want to get on. Does the hon. Gentleman want to mention another name?

Mr. Boyes: The hon. Gentleman has read out a list of names of great performers in their chosen field of art. I am sure that it was an oversight on the part of the hon. Gentleman that he did not mention any of the great photographers. Britain has made a great contribution to photography, not only through the artists, but also through the industry. I hope that he will include Bill Brandt, Julia Margaret Cameron and others in his list.

Mr. Crouch: I shall treat the House to a little anecdote. After my lunch with the bishops I joined the chairman of a great publishing house, Collins, together with the chairman of another great publishing house, Navostiof Moscow. They were celebrating an initiative for 100 photographers to go to the Soviet Union. On 15 May those 100 photographers, in the 15 states of the Soviet Union, will be taking photographs for 24 hours to record what will be called, "A day in the life of the Soviet Union". Having said that, I hope that I have put to rest this question of discussing photography for the rest of the debate.
I want to confine myself to the theatre and the state of it. I shall use a quotation and state where it comes from in a moment.
Theatre is one of Britain's greatest cultural assets. It brings economic benefit to the country. It is a key element in the international prestige of a nation. It enlightens, informs and refreshes, every year, at least one in every three people in the country in its live form and many more in its televised and film forms…It supports the work of industrialists and businessmen by enhancing the reputation of our country.
That is the quotation of a business man, Sir Kenneth Cork, in the Cork report, "Theatre is for All", which came out in September 1986. It is a business man's and accountant's report about the significance of the theatre in our society today. It is all about safeguarding our theatrical heritage.
I speak as the deputy chairman of the Theatres Trust, established by me by private Member's Bill in 1976 and extended by another private Member's Bill by me in 1978 to Scotland. The Cork report refers to the need to maintain the fabric of our theatres. The Theatres Trust exists to protect theatres from destruction and demolition to make way for offices, factories, shops or road programmes or to be converted into other uses.
The Theatres Trust has to be consulted by the local authorities and neither they or developers, can proceed without doing so. We have built a barrier of protection for British theatres. It is a matter of great pride to me that I was able to play a part in establishing a trust so strong and valuable to safeguard Britain's theatre today.
The Theatres Trust seeks to prevent theatres being converted to other uses, except for temporary uses such as


dance halls, restaurants, discos and bingo. Such temporary uses do not rob the theatre of its real function — the performance of live theatre. If an owner or a developer wants to level the auditorium or to remove the stage, the fly tower or any other essential theatre feature, we protest. We are consulted by theatres from the smallest to the biggest; from the tiny provincial theatre with 200 or 300 seats to the National theatre and Covent Garden. They have to consult us about every proposed alteration.
Over the past 10 years we have been remarkably successful, acting with little money but much authority and with a lot of knowledge about the theatre. The members of the Theatres Trust council come from a wide range of knowledgeable people in the theatre — performers, impresarios, managers and lawyers. The chairman, dare I say—he has been mentioned already— is the noble Lord Goodman. One could not have a more remarkably staunch advocate and sustainer of the arts and the theatre than that distinguished person. Moreover, he understands the law at the drop of a legal document. I have never known a man so quickly to comprehend the difficulties that might lie ahead.
The Cork report wants the Theatres Trust to do more than we are doing already. The report suggests that we should take on the responsibility for a new capital reinvestment fund to provide for the maintenance and conservation of our older theatres. The report referred to a sum of just under £500,000 for that work. It goes further and says that we should
be encouraged and assisted to become a National Trust for Theatre".
One of the trustees is the director of the National Trust and it would he a wonderful thing if we did become the National Trust for Theatre. I would welcome that. We are a little way off it yet, but it would be marvellous news for everyone in the theatre, and for playgoers too, if a National Trust for Theatre was created.
Let me say a word about the London scene today. The Theatres Trust today owns the freeholds of two West End theatres—the Garrick and the Lyric. I hope that it will not be long before we can obtain the freehold of one of London's greatest theatres — Henry Irving's Lyceum. That theatre has been dark for over 40 years yet it is one of the most magnificent in London, if not in Europe, with 2,300 seats. If it were restored it could once again be a home for great drama, Shakespeare, ballet, modern dance and opera. It is tragic that such a great theatre is standing empty — a bleak house if ever there was one — when London needs another theatre of this size.
There are only three other theatres of such size for the performance of large productions in London today — Drury Lane, the Coliseum and Covent Garden. London needs the Lyceum to meet the growing demand for big theatres. If we could bring it to life again London, the theatrical profession, theatregoers and the English tourist board would benefit, and so would the Westminster city council.
The Lyceum is now the responsibility of the London residuary body which took over the freehold and properties that were once owned by the GLC. I know that the LRB is anxious that the Lyceum should be returned to theatrical use again. The most responsible body for ensuring that future for the Lyceum is the Theatres Trust. If we had £5 million or perhaps a little more we could start tomorrow. If we cannot have a grant, perhaps we could

negotiate a loan. That theatre would pay. It would be packed because it would be one of the great theatres of London again.
I remember seeing the Lyceum in its last days just before it closed when I saw John Gielgud perform in his great production of "Hamlet" for four days only.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that had the GLC been allowed to continue in its democratic existence, what he is now talking about is far more likely to have come true?

Mr. Crouch: The hon. Gentleman has always shown an interest in the theatre and in the Lyceum, but he was not successful in bringing that about and it was a dance hall until it closed. Admittedly, having dances there did at least keep the rain out because the building was kept in reasonable condition, but it was not used as a theatre, except for one brief moment when "The Mysteries" was transferred by a friend of mine, Ian Mackintosh, from the National theatre, and there it performed to great audiences.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Globe theatre project at Southwark is highly commendable and Mr. Sam Wanamaker, who has battled for over 10 years to have that project approved, deserve the greatest praise?

Mr. Crouch: I agree and I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that. It is a wonderful project and it shows just how lively interest in the theatre still is. We have not forgotten our heritage and the need to sustain it.
I take my hat off to the great Canadian, Ed Mirvish, who saved the Old Vic. He did a great job there. I used to spend days there. I can remember paying Is 6d for the gallery to see Gielgud, Olivier and Ralph Richardson perform there. It is great that it has come back into its own. I am glad too about the Globe theatre project.
It is not just the Theatres Trust but the Government who should now make it a major objective in our policy and programme for the arts to recover the Lyceum and add it to our London theatres. I venture to say that we shall need this theatre in a few years' time in the 1990s when the Royal Covent Garden theatre, the opera house, has to be closed, as it will, for redevelopment and rebuilding, which is so necessary. It will be out of action for some years during that process. The Lyceum would be down the road, as big and capable of carrying on our great tradition of opera and ballet.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: Last Saturday night I had the privilege of attending art absolutely marvellous show that was produced by the Heywood amateur dramatic society. It was the musical "South Pacific." I received the invitation because I had helped the society to obtain the use of the civic hall and to get round some of the fire regulations. I enjoyed the show so much that, subsequently, I began to think about the cultural gap that is supposed to exist between the north and the south. I asked myself whether it existed. I do not believe that it does. Unfortunately, the north of England has been given a dreadful image mainly because of the cloth cap, "Coronation Street", Rovers Return, beer-swilling image.
Two weeks ago I mentioned my views to the regional newspaper, the Manchester Evening News. I was extremely


surprised last night when I opened that newspaper and discovered a double page article exactly on that theme entitled, "Coronation St. The soap that has slipped on reality". I should like to draw attention to the author's conclusion:
As an ambassador for the North West, Coronation Street tells a savage lie. Are we happy to be lampooned in such a way? I hope not.
I hope that we are not being lampooned because of the image derived from "Coronation Street". I believe that the reverse is true.
Only a month ago I went along to the Manchester city art gallery and saw a fantastic exhibition on Sir Alfred Munnings. The gallery was full of visitors. I was delighted to see many children being given art lessons by their teachers based on Munnings's paintings.
A week later I went along to the Whitworth art gallery, which is owned and supported by Manchester university. I could not get a parking space within a mile of the gallery. When I eventually got in to see the Degas exhibition, I realised that it was a hopeless task because there were so many people all wishing to view it. I came out and said to myself that I would go again. About three weeks later I went back but the result was exactly the same.
Manchester, which for me is the centre of the northwest, has always been proud of its heritage. We possess the Hall¹ orchestra. In recent years a magnificent effort was made by the people of Greater Manchester to renovate the Palace theatre and bring it up to international standards. More than £1 million was collected by the people to renovate the building in the hope that it could entice the prestigious companies from London. I am glad to say that the Palace theatre managed it once, but then — I considered it an absolute insult—the company involved said it would not come again. Perhaps it was because of the cloth cap image. The company claimed that it could not return because of the finance involved in travelling to the north.
I welcomed the strategy contained in "The Glory of the Garden". Although London is obviously the centre of the arts, I do not believe that the north is getting its fair share of Government grants to help develop the arts. However, I did not want London to be robbed of cash to finance the north. Unfortunately, I believe that was what the Government were doing: they were robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Is the north getting its fair share? To answer that question I should like to quote the Arts Council chairman, Sir William Rees-Mogg, who expressed disappointment that the Arts Council's grant-in-aid for 1986–87 is more than £25 million below the figure it had sought from the Government. Sir William said:
I am naturally disappointed. We had asked for £161 million which would have allowed for some expansion. The outcome is £135·6 million¹However, quite apart from the loss of expansion the grant for the next year will cause us and our clients"—
those in the north of England —
considerable difficulties.
As the Arts Council has a shortfall of £25 million and as no money appears to be earmarked for regional development this year under "The Glory of the Garden", I want the Minister to tell us whether the strategy contained in that document is to be abandoned. If so, when will that happen? It would be disastrous for the

regions, in particular the north-west, as the inequalities in the provision of the arts across the country remain massive.
I have often rasied on the Floor of the House the question of the funding of our art galleries and museums. Only a month ago I raised this subject with the Minister in Committee. I wish to raise it again. I was interested to discover that a national survey of more than 2,000 museums and galleries, undertaken by the museumsdatabase project funded by the Office of Arts and Libraries, reveals that every year over 68 million people—I stress that number—visit the country's national and local museums and galleries. A quarter of that number are tourists and obviously they are bringing much extra finance into the arts of Britain. More people visit museums and galleries than go to football matches or cinemas. I was astonished by that fact. I consider myself a sportsman and I enjoy watching Manchester United and Liverpool. Huge crowds watch football matches, but I was staggered by the fact that far more people—68 million—visit art galleries and museums.
However, our museums and arts galleries must cope with decades of neglect. I raised on the Floor of the House the experience I had when I visited one of our prestigious museums. While I was there, there was a sudden shower and I was astonished to see gallery employees putting out buckets and bowls to collect the rainwater pouring into the building. Some of the exhibits had to be moved.
That was not a one-off experience. Sir Roy Strong, director of the Victoria and Albert museum, came before the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts to explain his problems to us. He said of his building:
The entire electricity system is rotten and catches fire".
Just imagine if the system caught fire in a big way and consider the priceless exhibits that we would be likely to lose. He said:
The whole radiator system is rotten and has to be replaced. The whole security system is also completely rotten.
I do not know whether I should have said that, because it might give some burglars an idea to visit the place. He said:
I inherited 13 acres of rotten roof. It is difficult to maintain facilities for scholars, students, polytechnics and tourists when there is this appalling building problem, let alone meet what the community needs now, when we are coping with decades of neglect".
There is no doubt that the buildings under Sir Roy's control are in an appalling state and, because of inadequate Government funding, half the galleries in the museum are frequently closed.
At the Imperial war museum, fewer visitors negotiate the guns and the voluntary payment turnstiles. There has been a drop in visitors of 22 per cent. since December 1984. The 1984–85 report of the Museums and Galleries Commission cements what was said by Sir Roy and what I have seen. It states:
Public expenditure cuts have affected the national museums directly, and university and local authority museums indirectly. In recent months few museums, either national or non-national, have been able to avoid reducing their staff, curtailing their services, restricting access to parts of their collections or closing altogether on one week day.
I have some direct questions for the Minister. Have the museums and art galleries been advised to undertake surveys of their repair and refurbishment needs? Have the museums and art galleries expressed any concern about the state of their buildings? Will the Government provide the


resources for any necessary major programmes of repair, or will they be expected to find resources from the private sector or elsewhere? Will there be a separate Vote for museum building repairs? Why does not capital spending by central Government on museums and art galleries appear separately in the Government's public expenditure White Paper? Are there any other major plans in the pipeline?
When Sir William Rees-Mogg produced the garden strategy, he quoted Kipling. He used the garden as an analogy and said that gardens are not made merely by singing, "Oh, how beautiful!" and then sitting in the shade. That was an implied criticism of armchair critics. It is necessary to find more money to support the garden strategy, and against that background I, too, shall quote Kipling, but a different passage:
Ere yet we lose the legions,
Ere yet we draw the blade,
Jehovah of the Thunders, Lord God of Battle, give us aid!
It is aid for the north-west for which I am asking.

Mr. Toby Jessel: It is always a pleasure to hear Kipling quoted, especially by Labour Members, as it is something that seldom happens. I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on quoting Kipling at the close of an interesting speech. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks in any more detail.
At the end of his speech the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) asked for more policies. I can never understand the point of view of people who say that there must be more policies. It seems to me that we have far too many policies. When it comes to the arts, we need a Mrs. Beeton and not Joan of Arc. What matters are results, not policies. We need results, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts is producing them. He has told us of some of the results and he should be most warmly congratulated on what he has achieved.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) seems not to understand that what is meaningful in the arts is people's perceptions and not money figures. Anyone listening to the hon. Gentleman might have received the impression that what matters most is the amount of Government money that is provided, as if subsidy is an end in itself. He seemed to suggest that subsidy is a policy for its own sake, which, of course, it is not. Subsidy is not an end but a means to an end. What matters most is that the arts are buoyant, that they enrich and enlarge people's lives and provide enjoyment and stimulation on a growing scale. Provided that the arts are flourishing, it does not much matter whether that is the result of public demand, sponsorship or subsidy, or something else.
The arts are flourishing partly because Britain has a healthy economy. The economy is booming and people are spending more on the arts. It is partly the consequence of a flourishing economy that the arts are going well in Britain almost as never before. There is a great flowering of talent. The London theatre, which we have heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), is well patronised and going like a bomb. It is quite difficult to get into most of the best theatres. More people go to the theatre each year. Indeed, more people go to theatres than attend football matches. Opera is flourishing and so is ballet. Concerts are going well. There

is a vast range of orchestral concerts, chamber music concerts and solo concerts. Attendances at symphony concerts over the past five years have increased by about 20 per cent. from 900,000 to 1,112,000.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, spoke of the need to widen audiences. If that increase in the number of people attending concerts is not widening audiences, I do not know what is. The hon. Gentleman said that more subsidy is made available on the continent. That is probably right. More Government subsidy is made available in France than in the United Kingdom, but London has three times as many concerts every year as Paris. What is the use of providing more subsidy if there are fewer concerts to attend?
Without doubt London is one of the arts capitals of the world. It is none the worse for the abolition of the Greater London council. The south bank — the royal festival hall, the Queen Elizabeth hall, the Purcell room and the Hayward gallery — seems to be rather better run now than they were under the GLC.

Mr. Tony Banks: What about the rest of London? I do not want to deny the hon. Gentleman's predictably cheap point.

Mr. Jessel: There is nothing cheap about it.

Mr. Banks: Would the hon. Gentleman not accept in his wiser and quieter moments that the GLC did a great deal for the arts in London, including the south bank?

Mr. Jessel: It did a great deal for the arts, but the overhead administration of county hall was hugely expensive. The present south bank board is doing at least as well without that vast administrative superstructure in county hall.
The museums are doing well too. As the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton has said, about 68 million people visit museums every year. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has told us, a new museum opens every two weeks. Our heritage and the arts generally bring many tourists into the country and their spending, not only on the arts but on hotels, restaurants and shopping, generates income and employment. I believe that the entire House is united in its acceptance of that. This provides a tremendous strength to Britain; and the arts world plays a tremendous part in bringing this about. The Government play their part and both they and the arts world should be congratulated.
Sponsorship has multiplied fortyfold from about £500,000 10 years ago to about £20 million now. It was astonishing that a Liberal party document of a few years ago described sponsorship's importance as merely peripheral.
Sponsorship can be local as well as national and in my constituency Thames Television, which has studios at Teddington, sponsored, two years ago, a local concert whch raised £12,000 for the Save the Children Fund's "Famine in Africa" appeal. Thames Television is sponsoring another concert in a couple of months' time in which I happen to be taking part.

Mr. Buchan: What sort of part?

Mr. Jessel: I am playing a Mozart piano concerto. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not regard that as what he described about an hour ago as philistine. This time the


concert is in aid of the Teddington memorial hospital's new X-ray scheme. Thames Television has a particular link with that hospital.
Other local companies, such as Squires Garden Centre, have generously sponsored other charity concerts. I am asking all arts bodies in my constituency that are registered charities, such as the Hampton choral society, the Twickenham choral society and the Teddington choral society, to notify all their members of the payroll giving scheme, which starts in April 1987, following the Finance Act 1986. This will help provide more money for the arts through individual support because those who become involved in the scheme will obtain tax relief on their contributions. The Government should be warmly congratulated on introducing such an excellent scheme.
I shall just make four short requests of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. The first concerns BBC Radio 3, which is unique in fostering a love of music in Britain. No other country has anything like it. Radio 3 and the BBC promenade concerts which are linked with it are greatly valued national assets. The BBC has a new chairman and a new director-general, both of whom are unknown quantities as to their view of the musical side of the work of the BBC. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister approach the BBC and ask it for an assurance that its splendid musical tradition, primarily through Radio 3, will be upheld, and that music will be provided with a fair share of the BBC's resouces?
Secondly, have the Government dropped the idea of a levy on blank tapes? In fairness to the music world, I hope that they have not dropped the idea and that they intend, when parliamentary time allows, to proceed with something of that kind.
Thirdly, I refer to value added tax on antiques at auction. London is pre-eminent in auctions of works of art. Sotheby's, Christie's, Phillips' and Bonham's bring prestige and trade to Britain. The Common Market is considering imposing value added tax not just on auctioneers' commissions, but on the whole value of each article. That would be crazy. It would drive trade not just out of Britain but out of the European Community and to other auction centres such as New York and Geneva. I hope that the Government will take a firm line and stop any such thing happening.
Fourthly, military bands are a characteristic part of British heritage. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central spoke generously of my support of this most worthwhile cause. I could not understand the hon. Gentleman, who is articulate, erudite and learned in the use of the English language, calling it a peccadillo. If military bands are peccadillos, let us have more peccadillos. The high standards of excellence of British military bands are inextricably linked with the Royal Military school of music at Kneller hall, Twickenham, which has trained Army bands for 129 years. Last year, 164 of my right hon. and hon. Friends signed the early-day motion stating that the status quo should long continue. This is the 17th time on which I have raised the matter in the House. I have had 12 meetings with different Ministers — one with the Prime Minister and 11 with different Defence Ministers.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that military bands not only provide pleasure in his constituency but morale-raising spirit throughout all constituencies?

Mr. Jessel: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. Military bands are a great asset to the nation.
Although military bands are a matter primarily for Defence Ministers, who are expected to reach a decision soon — they have been saying "soon" for months. — I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts will not mind if I mention that I hope he will support it because military music must be a form of martial art.

Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman, who knows much about the subject, confirm that £48 million is spent on military bands each year?

Mr. Jessel: That is the cost of all bands of the Army, the Royal Air Force, and the Royal Marines. It is not only the cost of training them, it is the total cost of running them. That is excellent value for money. Not only do they help to promote recruitment to the Army but they are trained to serve as medical orderlies in wartime. As part of the British arts, heritage and tradition, they help to attract to our shores visitors whose spending generates income and employment. They help to increase the number of people who stay in hotels and spend their money here. There is thus a valuable tax yield for the Government. They should be fully supported.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Over the past hour or two, I have been wondering whether I should speak in this debate. I changed my mind several times. I found it extremely difficult. I feel a little like St. Sebastian in innumerable renaissance paintings. With the exception of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan), I had the impression that we were listening to a type of lying-in-state series of speeches. There has been little sign that the arts fundamentally matter. They have tended to be a little cream on the top of the cake. I cannot think of any other country in which the arts are so fundamental.
The expression of news, popular opinions and ideas is undertaken by the press, which is owned by three people. It is a frightening monopoly. If that happened in any other part of our industry or economy, it would immediately face the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Five people control the dissemination of popular news in this country—Stevens, Maxwell, Murdoch— [Interruption.] Is that the question that hon. Members put? Is that the contribution that I get? Five people control the dissemination of news and information throughout Western Europe. There is Berlusconi, who is in France. That is a terrifying control of expression.
We have heard about the arts tonight and we have, in effect, wandered along the south bank. People express themselves through the arts. That is what the arts are fundamentally about. They say something, as Sam Wanamaker of the Globe theatre said. I remember Sam Wanamaker not only because of his work in the Globe theatre and the extra grace that it will bring to London but, because of McCarthyism, he was expelled from America because he wanted his art to say something. That has been missing here.
I have heard comments about the structure and funding of the arts. The level of funding is ludicrous when we


consider the importance of our major form of expression. When we look at the press monopoly, the matter becomes even more serious. Were it not for the fact that we have a community-regulated broadcasting system, there would be a virtual monopoly of one shade of political opinion. When regulated broadcasting attempts to express other views, the chairman of the Conservative party, in his other role as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, intervenes to attack.
Over the past two years increasing timidity has affected our most important cultural jewel, British broadcasting. I shall provide a comparison which is not separate from the arts. Two years ago, an attempt was made to ban "Real Lives", a programme about Northern Ireland. It required the intervention of the Home Secretary before the governors acted to prevent the programme from being shown. Two years after that, the "Secret Society" programmes about Zircon were banned by the BBC. In other words, within two years, the Home Secretary's intervention was not required. Timidity and anxiety had been pre-empted in the BBC and it acted to apply self-censorship. That has been the effect on broadcasting.
When there is a monopoly on opinion and expression in this country and the regulated broadcasting structures suffer from it, we have only the arts to express ideas and views. We shall not get such expression in Murdoch's newspapers. Alan Bleasdale wrote "The Boys from the Black Stuff". People such as he say a great deal more about social and political life than our legislation does. If people were asked where they last saw a play about unemployment, they would not say that they had seen it on the south bank or in the Royal Shakespeare theatre. They would refer to the set of three plays that they saw on television called, "The Boys from the Black Stuff."
I remember what happened to those boys. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and I have referred to the monstrosity of unemployment, but those three plays said more about unemployment and fixed it more firmly in the consciousness of the British people than any other play. It drew their attention to the outrage of a Government and a society that can cause this to happen to human beings. The words that were used in that play have passed into the folklore of this country. The arts matter because they say something.
I have listened tonight to comments about subsidies, and as I listened I wondered whether those hon. Members understand what people need. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred to authority over broadcasting. I wish that he would spell it out. Ten years ago my party accepted that broadcasting matters so much to the cultural life and expression of this country that it had to be taken away from the Home Office and given to an arts Ministry. We alone in the world have put broadcasting, the jewel of our culture, into the hands of a Ministry of the Interior. The Minister who orders the police to attack the Wapping pickets, who orders the special branch to go into the offices of the New Statesman and who bangs open the door of Duncan Campbell's house and takes out the tapes, documents and scripts relating to a set of six programmes is also in charge of broadcasting. The Minister who is supposed to safeguard freedom of expression, is also responsible for TI division in the Home Office.
I am holding in my hand a document that refers to BBC finance and to the TV licensing system. Under the heading "T1 Division", paragraph 7 refers to

Press freedom including Press Council matters and proposals for a statutory right of reply.
Therefore, a Minister of the Interior is controlling a central element of our civilisation and culture. That is why the Labour party and the trade union movement said 10 years ago that we had to bring it under a Minister and a Ministry whose main concern was freedom of expression, not censorship and the distortion and compression of expression.
I inherited that policy three years ago. I did not invent it; I was fortunate enough to inherit it. However, that policy has been rejected.

Mr. Fisher: No.

Mr. Buchan: If it has not been rejected, my hon. Friend had better spell it out for me, because there has been a change of policy since I was sacked for saying it. I regret the fact that no new powers will be given to our Labour party shadow or real Minister under the amended proposals of the national executive committee. However, he will have a say. He will be allowed to discuss policies with the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry.
The policy amendments have also wiped out films and the press. My hon. Friend ought to look at the amendments on pages 39 to 44. I hope that he wins the battle. Unless my hon. Friend tells his colleagues and comrades in the Labour movement that this battle has to be won, he will not win it. I did not win that battle. Therefore, he has not inherited a victory from me. I shall back him up in his fight.
I gave a pledge to double expenditure on the arts. It was a modest increase. 1 sought to double the £140 million that is given to the arts. Arts expenditure is only 1/1300th of the entire public expenditure. The Labour party will honour that pledge to double the funding for the arts. At the last meeting—the meeting at which I was sacked— the battle for the £140 million was won; and an additional £40 million for museums.
We do not need formal structures for the arts. We need structures that will involve the people as deeply as possible. It is not sufficient for a Minister with responsibility for the arts to have only one role. It is wrong that he should be presented with a cocked hat and a sword and that he should only be asked ceremonially to open various projects. He has very little else to do. He cannot use his initiative. If something is not doing too well, he cannot intervene and inject a little cash. There is a case for adopting an arm's-length attitude, but this Tory Government do not accept it. They accepted the Priestley report—quite rightly in terms of money—but they drove a coach and horses through the arm's-length principle. The Arts Council says that it cannot take money away from the four national institutions because that would not be in accordance with Government policy. That is to be found on page 13 of "The Glory of the Garden".
Furthermore, the arts should not be under the direct control of the Government. When names are submitted to the Prime Minister for appointment to the board of governors of the BBC—and no doubt for appointment to the Arts Council—she asks, "Is he one our ours?" That seems to be the appointment criterion. The arm's length principle does not apply. The Arts Council should have an independent voice and should speak for the arts and for the regions. We have allowed the arts to be dominated for far too long by establishment London. I am


referring not to the whole of London—to Islington, Hackney, Brixton, or Newham — but to establishment London. That policy has to be changed. People who live elsewhere than in establishment London also want to be able to see good plays and operas.
Conservative Members criticise the subsidies to the arts. However, arts subsidies mainly subsidise those who support the Conservative party—the middle class and the wealthy. Even if the price of seats at Covent Garden were to be reduced, they would still be beyond the reach of most working people. Access to them can be brought about only if we allow the Arts Council to speak for the arts and the regions. We must also create strong regional bodies to develop the arts in the regions. We need regional arts development boards instead of the client responsive regional arts associations. Expertise is also needed in the regions. For far too long the regions have looked to No. 105 Piccadilly for expertise. If those objectives can be achieved, the Arts Council will be able to speak for the arts in Britain.
There should also be arm's-length discussion of funding for the arts. The Labour party would give the Arts Council, or a national arts body, the statutory right to publish its analysis of the economic state of the country, and the Minister would be under a duty to publish his response in the form of a White Paper that could be debated in the House. On that basis the arm's-length principle would be a reality. The Labour party would provide direct funding for the regional arts development boards. They would then be responsible for the direct funding of their clients. The Arts Council would be directly funded, and again the arm's-length principle would be achieved because the Arts Council would fund directly the national institutions.
It is most important, however, that sufficient money should be made available to the arts so that they are not put at the mercy of sponsorship. It has been argued by the Minister that sponsorship means additional money coming to the arts. It is only over the last two or three years that the money for the arts has been cut in real terms. That has taken place at the same time as there has been an increase in sponsorship. Sponsorship is seen not as an additional source of funding for the arts but as a substitute for proper public funding. [Interruption.] The Minister for Trade has plenty of money; local arts theatres have not got such money or even pictures like the one that he and his family were able to sell. That sale could have funded several theatres. The hon. Gentleman made more out of one picture than most theatres get for an entire year in subsidies. Yet he sneers. What a party the Conservative party is.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): That is an historical inaccuracy.

Mr. Buchan: It is not even historical; it is almost contemporary in the hon. Gentleman's case.
As Mr. Joll of Pearson Incorporated said, his company prefers to sponsor exhibitions with which it feels comfortable. In other words, the safe, prestigious and glamorous will be supported but 7:84, M6 and Red Ladder will not be supported. But the arts that matter, not just the development for which Wanamaker was praised in the Globe theatre but the productions for which he was

expelled from America, will not attract sponsorship. Sponsorship is being used as a substitute for genuine public funding.
Sponsorship of itself distorts the direction of the arts. That is the danger of too much love of sponsorship. It is not a case even of adopting the American method where public funding endowments undertake to give x amount of money to a theatre or orchestra if there is private funding. In that way, public funding is attracted to the productions that the community wants. But through their scheme the Government are forced to give money to whichever body the sponsor nominates. The sponsor decides where the public funding goes. Also, the body funded by the sponsor, be it a cigarette company or whatever, has to ensure that sufficient publicity is given to the sponsor to make it worth his while in advertising terms. So public funding is powerfully underwriting the advertising abilities of the private sponsor.
All that is against a background in which the Minister says that his policy is to maintain public funding but that all further development and expansion must come from the private sector. In effect, that means a cut because the inflationary element within the arts is much higher than the RPI or the general denominator. Therefore, there is a continual drain on public funding and a distortion of production to try to attract private money. The directors of theatres and arts organisations are being changed into fund raisers instead of acting as administrators and forward thinkers. That is the problem faced by the arts.
I come back to where I began. We are faced with an intense monopoly of ideas and of the creative arts illustrated by the lack of funding for British films and for British broadcasting which is now to be frozen while the private and commercial sectors will be allowed to drive ahead. Last week's Green Paper proposed that with the development of commercial radio the obligation to inform, educate and entertain would be removed. That duty was laid properly on the BBC and upon independent television, but it is to be removed from commercial radio. Therefore, it will also be removed from commercial television. In other words, the BBC will be forced into competition in which it is regulted and will have to obey its instruction to inform, entertain and educate, but the commercial sector will not be subject to such regulation.
What sort of free competition is that from the party of free enterprise? It is an attempt to follow through the principles of Peacock, who said that there should be a free for- all and that cash should decide. I must point out to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) that when that happens there will not be freedom. The hon. Gentleman said that the BBC could choose on what to spend its money, but it can choose only between the things that are provided. If they are not provided on a full scale, it will have very little choice. There has been talk of hundreds of commercial community radio stations. If there is a free-for-all and if they are opened up without regulation and control, we will end up with a monopoly such as there is in the press.
In his report, Professor Peacock said precisely that. He gave the example of the free press which has developed in Britain since 1694. He proposed that that should happen also to television and broadcasting. But the free press that existed for almost 300 years has degenerated into a monopoly of three people. If that is to be the model, the same will happen to television. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should not tell me to hurry. There is much to be


said on the Opposition side of the House; we have had too much of nothing being said on the Government side, so I shall take another few seconds.
If Professor Peacock's proposal comes into force, there will be no choice. The only choice will be between different soap operas, because the duty to inform, educate and broadcast in commercial serious programmes will go. This is not an elitist concept. It is as important for the guy who is interested in coarse fishing or rugby as for the person who wants opera. Diversity of programmes is not an elitist concept. We must understand that. It is nonsense to say that opera is only for the few, much as that view has been promulgated. As the broadcasting channels have opened up to opera, so the audiences for opera have expanded.
Because of the monopoly problem in broadcasting and the press, we decided on the policy for the arts and culture that my hon. Friend will implement after the next election. We must open up access to television by ensuring that there is a large number of programmes from which to choose. There must also be participation. Hence we developed the concept of the open cultural university. Just as the Open university was brought into being in the 1960s, so we have in local communities a conglomeration of resources such as arts schools, colleges, and schools with music and art studios, which could be used as a campus to develop a participating open cultural university analogous to the educational Open university.
All that is possible and necessary. Three weeks ago I went into the Coats factory in Paisley, one of the major cotton spinning factories in Britain since the industrial revolution. Fifteen years ago, 15,000 people worked in the cotton mill; today, 350 people work there. I went into workshops larger than this House with no one in them. The bobbin spinning was controlled and completely automated. The 350 people in the factory were firemen, doorkeepers, sweepers, packers and drivers. We are moving into an age where. if we can have control and ownership of the new technologies, we can open up a richness of life in which the arts will be an active and necessary part of developed thought and thinking.
The poet McDiarmid, in his poem "Returning to Glasgow from a Long Exile", describes a man returning to Glasgow and seeing a crowd coming back from Ibrox park, and he asked a newsboy, "What's on, has there been a big game?" The newspaper seller said, "No. Where have you been? There is a debate going on between Professor McFadzean of the philosophy department and a Spanish philosopher, and the whole of Ibrox stadium is full." McDiarmid says, "I looked down the road and there was a newsboy selling newspapers, and he was shouting, 'Read all about it, Turkish poet's abstruse new poem.' Holy snakes, the papers were selling like hot cakes."
If we have control over our own lives instead of leaving control of technology to a few, in a world in which broadcasting can be fully opened up to the people of this country and not be left to Maxwell and Murdoch—who have already brought in the satellites—if we understand that people want to do as well as to watch, to say things as well as to listen, we can use the arts to enlarge and enrich our lives. If not, we will allow our people to atrophy, not through choice but because we have limited that choice to a few entrepreneurs of ideas. That is why we spend so much time on this subject. That is why the Leader of the Opposition and I can quarrel, because we know that the arts matter. I wish I had sonic impression that the
Government understood that. That is why we may yet touch the imagination of the people of this country and win, as we should win the coming election.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I feel like the Labour worker after the Greenwich by-election result who awoke by accident in the alliance—he could not have felt more unwelcome. Having listened to this very warm and cosy debate this evening, I feel much the same.
I join my right hon. Friend the Minister in congratulating Charles Vance and his organisation on removing a white elephant from Hillingdon and turning what was a tremendous burden on the ratepayers of that authority into a theatre that is now beginning to charge the right sort of prices for the right sort of shows. I have a message for the Liberal-alliance spokesman, who is not in the House. If he is so keen on keeping open subsidised theatre, why did the Liberal-controlled council in Eastbourne close the local Devonshire Park theatre?
We have heard much about the phrase "the arts". What is or is not art is a matter for personal choice. If some people want to listen to an overweight Italian singing in his own language, so be it. If people want to waste time watching a man prancing about in a pair of ladies' tights on stage, that is their choice. But do not expect me and the rest of the people in this country to subsidise that choice. — [Interruption.] I beg hon. Members not to tell me that it is part of my heritage. There are other forms of art that are understood by the ordinary working-class people of this country. Professional football in many ways is an art form, so is watching Michael Crawford in "Phantom of the Opera". But there is one subtle difference. If I want to see professional football or watch Michael Crawford performing, I have to pay the full economic cost. I do not have to dress up in a dinner suit and bow tie or take a lady in a long dress and to say that I am desperately keen to go to the ballet or opera on condition that the taxpayer subsidises my ticket by £21.
It is a strange phenomenon in this country that last year an unemployed couple was paid £47·85 benefit a week to live on. The Government say that is all they can afford to pay them, but they will give that unemployed couple another £42 of the taxpayers' money to go to the ballet and opera.
My two daughters and my son enjoy pop concerts. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) rightly knows, they enjoy watching pop groups such as Spandau Ballet. They are young people and they resent being told by their elders and so-called betters that that is not art, that it is just a pop concert, that if they want to go there, they have to pay the full economic cost, but that if they want to dress up and look smart and take a taxi to Covent Garden, they can go in and the taxpayer will subsidise them to the extent of £21 each. Young people say to those who tell them what arts are, "Mind your own business, we shall find out and decide for ourselves." I say hear, hear to that.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Member. His muscular approach to the arts is well known in this House. Does he recall the fact that Spandau Ballet performed at the Royal Festival hall when it was being run by the Greater London council? Unfortunately, he probably also knows that those people put up Spandau Ballet because they thought it was a ballet from Spandau.

Mr. Dicks: The hon. Gentleman has not told the House that he was chairman of the arts committee at the time, which makes it even worse.
We have heard about this wonderful place called Covent Garden. The Sunday Times printed an article about that fantastic place where six performances of a show cost £529,000. Total subsidised sales were £199,900. Private sponsorship contributed £150,000. The net loss was £179,000.
If ballet, opera and music are so good, why, even when it is subsidised to that tune, do people still not want to go? I cannot understand. Any other organisation in any industry, working on that basis where it could not attract people to attend would be bankrupt. Football clubs have said that they cannot keep going and that they need aid. The Government Front Bench says, "Sorry, you must live in the real world. You paid high transfer fees and you have to suffer the consequences."
A Mexican opera singer, whose name escapes me, received £10,000 per performance, but we do not tell Covent Garden that it is paying him too high a fee and that we shall not subsidise it. Indeed, the Prime Minister went on stage after listening to an opera and said that the Government will continue subsidising because "the arts are essential". Who said that her definition of the arts or that of my right hon. Friend the Minister is correct and that the definition of arts by myself and my daughter with regard to pop concerts and soccer is wrong? How dare people say that by one definition the arts are part of our culture but that by another definition they are not?

Mr. Peter Pike: If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington was referring Covent Garden, it could be that its costs are so high that it is impossible to charge an economic price for a ticket. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that part of the reason that Covent Garden has new proposals for redevelopment of the whole of that site, involving commercial activities which otherwise it would not really wish to embark upon, is to reduce the cost of running the operas and ballet, and to reduce the subsidy it will need?

Mr. Dicks: I do not doubt that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is right, but why is it getting any subsidy at all? If it cannot create the show, as it must in the commercial theatre, and secure sponsorship for it, we should say, "Hard lines; obviously people do not want to see it because they do not want to pay the price." Nobody says that. We have an Arts Minister. Why, with great respect, I do not know. It is a matter of supply and demand. It is almost as bad as having a Minister for Sport.

Mr. Jessel: Could not my hon. Friend apply most of his argument to the whole of education?

Mr. Dicks: With great respect to my hon. Friend, one could ask what sort of comprehensive schools the Labour authorities is running. Education is essential. I say that the arts are not essential but are a leisure pursuit depending on personal choice. Education is quite different from that and I do not think that it is a true analogy. The budget for the arts is £343 million. I appreciate that that includes National Heritage and museums, but I am most concerned with opera, music and the ballet. We give £151 million a year for these fat cats to enjoy ballet, music and the opera, yet we say to old-age pensioners during the bad weather that we cannot afford to pay the additional severe weather

heating payment unless the cold weather starts on a Monday and ends on a Sunday. If it starts on a Wednesday and ends on a Tuesday, we cannot help them. We could say, on the other hand, "You can freeze or we can give you a good way of getting warm. We will take you to the opera and give you £42 for you and your husband to go in there and stay warm." That would be an excellent way for the Government to ensure that the opera was full and the old people were kept warm.
I think that I have made my point. To me, subsidy for the arts is upper-crust nonsense. The old argument is that we have always done it, everyone thinks that it is a good idea, it is bipartisan, so of course we should continue with it. Today's debate has not been about whether it is right to waste public money in this way. The debate has been about whether the money was spent wisely and whether there was enough of it. The whole thing is nonsense. It is time someone pointed out that the king is not wearing a new suit—he is completely naked. That is what I have sought to do as a Back-Bench Member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity.

8 pm

Mr. Tony Banks: It is always interesting to hear the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) discoursing on the arts. In many ways, the hon. Gentleman is to the arts what James "Bonecrusher" Smith is to lepidoptery. His speeches are made additionally entertaining for the Opposition by the looks of horror on the faces of so many of his colleagues on the Conservative Benches. A few support the hon. Gentleman's view—I noticed one or two hon. Members from the Shed end of the arts come in to hear his speech—but it is very much a minority view even on his own side. That is a good thing because his views are philistine in the extreme, anachronistic and wholly unacceptable to any civilised body of thought.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on just one point—the definition of art. I shall not explore that today, but the hon. Gentleman is right that the definition tends to be what white, male, middle-class people say that it is. I have never accepted that ice dancing, which uses movement and music with great grace, should be described as a sport while ballet is an art form. Rather than narrowing the definition, however, the hon. Gentleman should consider expanding it to take in some of the activities that he and his family take themselves off to enjoy.
By some strange coincidence, arts debates always seem to take place on election days. I believe that the last Government-inspired arts debate was at the time of the Euro-elections. Perhaps application for an arts debate should stand alongside application for the stewardship for the Chiltern Hundreds or the Manor of Northstead as a way of signifying that the smell of an election is in the air. In this context, I should put it on record that today's by-election arts debate was caused by the death of one of the few genuinely popular Members of Parliament.
The Minister laid great emphasis on private funding for the arts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on- Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made clear, the Opposition in no way reject private sponsorship, although we see it very much as just a little bit of stuff on top. One has the impression, however, that the Minister was emphasising it


to cover up the low level of central Government support for the arts. He made a number of worrying statements in this regard which suggested that as private funding increases there will be great pressure on him—to which I do not think that he will be especially resistant—to reduce the amount of central Government funding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr, Buchan), without notes, made one of the most eloquent speeches that I have heard since I came to the House, and one which I could not begin to emulate. He made the point that business sponsorship tends to go into the safe art forms, so that community arts and black art cannot look to business sponsorship for the funding that they so desperately need. Instead they must look to the dispassionate forms of art funding which can only come from local authorities, public bodies and the Government.
Much has been said in the debate about the revenue gained from tourism, which in 1986 amounted to no less than £5·5billion. There are many reasons why people in their millions visit this country, but I do not think that even the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington would contest the claim that most of them come to enjoy our theatres, museums, art galleries, concert halls, and historic buildings while few, if any, come to gaze at our office blocks, development sites and motorways, or at the tower blocks in which so many of my constituents live. People come to this country because of its rich diversity of culture, but we still tend to talk of subsidies to arts. Both sides have done so in this debate because one tends to lapse into that kind of description, suggesting that the arts are somehow a liability.
The very word "subsidy" puts the arts in a defensive position, which is wholly inappropriate in view of their great contribution to the nation's cultural and economic welfare. Using the word in that sense, it could be said that we subsidise defence and unemployment. Indeed, it could be argued that we have the best defended dole queues in the western world. In fact, we invest in education, in the arts and in other areas of creative social activity.
I do not believe that the Government really take the arts seriously, regarding them as the soft underbelly of public expenditure and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South said, as something of a luxury. The Government motion is complacent and, in some parts, downright untruthful, revealing an appalling depth of ignorance about the social and economic significance of the arts. The Government may twist and turn the figures, but, as I explained in detail in an Adjournment debate on the Arts Council budget for 1987–88, if that budget is measured against the retail prices index, there has been a real decrease of 3 per cent. in central Government spending on the arts since 1979–80. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South pointed out, if we take the more accurate average earnings index we see that there has been a real cut of 22 per cent. in the arts budget since 1979. The Office of Arts and Libraries is responsible for a total of £339 million in 1987–88 — less than one quarter per cent. of total Government expenditure amounting to £148,000 million. That is the pathetically small amount that we invest in the arts in this country.
I wish to refer briefly to the part played by the arts in the cultural industries of this country—something that the Government and the Office of Arts and Libraries seem incapable of understanding and that the Arts Council is only slowly beginning to appreciate. We live in a

industrialised nation that is fast becoming de-industrialised. That may be inevitable, given our position as the world's oldest and now decrepit capitalist economy, but there is little doubt that the Government's current economic policies are exacerbating the decline. We are living off North sea oil, squandering the family silver and heading rapidly towards the status of a banana monarchy without the benefit of bananas.
There is one area of economic activity which I believe holds enormous hope for the future; the cultural industries. By that I mean not only performing and visual arts but radio, televison, film, video, printing, publishing and other leisure activities mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). It is a large and important sector of the economy with proven and future growth potential. Nationally, leisure spending amounted in 1985 to some £20 billion, or around 10 per cent. of all consumer spending. In London alone, the Greater London council estimated that about 250,000 people are employed in the cultural industries. The GLC also concluded that it was essential to develop an economic strategy for such an important sector of the economy.
Many Conservative Members would no doubt insist that we should let the market get on with it. Opposition Members do not agree. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, that most people have turned to commercial forms of culture for satisfaction such as records, commercial television, radio" films and theatre. However, there is a vital interplay between the private sector and the publicly supported art forms. At first glance the private sector might appear to be self-reliant and self-regenerative, but it depends in great measure on the publicly supported artistic base and both the private and public sectors rely heavily on the original ideas, talents and new art forms that make cultural changes in this country so dynamic. Those are provided by the so-called fringe theatre groups, the small literary presses, magazines, record labels and independent film and video makers. It is at that level that real cultural regeneration takes place, continually adding to the rich cultural diversity of our country which is so attractive to overseas visitors and which we all praise, but which so many of us do so little to nurture.
The growth of our cultural heritage will not stop whatever central Government do or, in this case, do not do. At a time when our wider economic prospects were more optimistically based, the case for Government involvement and intervention in the cultural industries was not so self-evident. Now, with alarming de-industrialisation of what was once the premier manufacturing nation on earth, the case for central Government involvement in the strategic planning of the cultural industries becomes overwhelming.
The Government spend tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on supporting industry and regard that as being a fit and proper use of public expenditure. Why not spend similar money on the cultural industries in terms of developing a proper strategy? The GLC drew up a strategy for the cultural industries as part of a wider industrial strategy for London. It proposed public investment and loan finance in addition to the more traditional forms of public support. The strategy was aimed at supporting the base of the cultural industries; those small independent concerns that have lost out in terms of exploiting their own success through problems in


distribution, marketing and the tendency towards monopoly. It is important in economic terms to encourage diversification and plan developments in the cultural industries, but it is also important in terms of national culture, because otherwise the prodigious growth in communication technology will result in an unacceptable internationalisation of popular culture which will truly represent chewing gum for the eyes.
When future generations come to judge the quality of life in today's Britain, one of the first things they will look at will be the artistic legacy that we have left them, just as we have judged past generations by their music, sculpture, paintings and buildings. Investing in people's creative talents is one of the finest investments any country can make but it calls for a breadth of vision and imagination that the present Government, with their rather seedy street corner shop mentality, simply do not possess. The Labour party has that vision, and the future of the arts will look so much more vital and exciting when we have that Labour Government and when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central is our Minister for the Arts.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I feel like Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol", watching a whole succession of Opposition spokesmen. We have heard the Opposition spokesman Present in the form of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), we have heard the Opposition spokesman Past, in the form of the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) and we may have heard the Opposition spokesman Future in the form of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I will not follow the line of argument taken by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West except to agree, probably with all three Opposition spokesmen, that the arts are important. Having got beyond that first sentence, I fear that there is little further on which we can agree.
It is right to start any speech on this subject by reminding the House that the arts are important. Civilisation as we know it depends on flourishing arts. Whatever one's definition of artistic activity, there is no doubt that without it there is no civilisation. Therefore, it is important that we should debate this subject and consider the state of the arts in this country.
We seem to be discussing the way in which artists should be supported. After all, it is well known that artists cannot flourish in the commercial sense. There needs to be support of one form or another, whether it be patronage, subsidy or sponsorship. The debate is about which of those forms is to be pre-eminent. I do not want to spend long going down that path, but one has to face up to the fact that sometimes there is too much emphasis on subsidy, sometimes there is too much emphasis on sponsorship and sometimes there is too much emphasis on patronage. The balance between those three is a debate which could be taken up when there is more time available.
There is definitely a tension between those who feel that there should be more state intervention in the arts and those who, like myself, feel that there should perhaps be less. On the whole, I think that the Government have got the balance just about right. There is no question about the fact that either extreme would not be healthy for the arts or for the country at large. The Labour party, in the way that I understood its arguments, wants to take over the

running of the arts in a way that would be damaging to our culture and traditions and would introduce a bureaucracy which could damage the arts in the same way as too much bureaucracy has done a great deal of damage to our education. I will not debate whether education is more important than the arts or vice versa, a subject introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).
The Government's record is good on the whole question of the arts. The strategy of "The Glory of the Garden," which was introduced as a result of discussions between the Government and the Arts Council, quite rightly stimulated a flow of more resources away from London towards the regions. In my area of East Anglia, I can see evidence that that is working. I can see orchestras flourishing and I have attended concerts recently by the Peterborough string orchestra and there are many other examples which show that there is more activity in the regions. That is partly a successful result of the "Glory of the Garden" strategy.
I wholeheartedly support the Government's enthusiasm for private fund-raising and business sponsorship. I do not think that we have taken that too far; we can take it further. For example, in Norwich within the past few weeks local business men Roger Gawn and Francis Cheetham from the Castle museum received an award from my right hon. Friend the Minister at a reception because of their sponsorship of Norfolk museum's service, which has been highly successful. This was a well-deserved award.
To show the difficult choices that have to be made in the arts, particularly in East Anglia, I would like to mention the Theatre Royal in Norwich. That illustrates many of the problems we are addressing this evening. As many of my hon. Friends and, indeed, Opposition Members are fully aware, the Theatre Royal in Norwich has a good record of success, particularly in recent years, under the leadership of Dick Condon. That remark will gain support from all quarters of the House and throughout Norfolk and the wider area.
The Theatre Royal in Norwich is now at a crossroads in deciding how its future will develop. Recently, the independent trust under its chairman Mr. Geoffrey Marshall, to whom I spoke yesterday in the House, has taken the initiative to launch an appeal for £2·5 million for extra funds for the theatre. That appeal deserves support throughout the House, from local authorities and people in East Anglia. I hope that local people and businesses will not take this excellent theatre for granted and will respond enthusiastically and generously to the appeal.
The reason why the appeal is necessary at the moment is that there is an urgent need in the theatre for an upgrading of facilities and a general improvement of the building. There is a need for a larger orchestra pit, extra seating and other improvements. The improvements have become necessary because of the need to attract more support from the Arts Council. As an example, the Glyndebourne touring opera company used to come—as far as I can recall—to the Theatre Royal twice a year. It was always very successful, financially profitable and it sold out concerts. I have attended many of those concerts. However, this year for the first time, it will not be coming in the autumn.
Touring companies are less and less willing to come to theatres unless those theatres bring their facilities and amenities right up to standard — at least that is my


understanding of the present position. That is why it is right that the appeal has been launched to meet that challenge. In the meantime, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will show good faith towards the initiative and think again about ways in which we can encourage an increase in the support for touring companies to avoid serious short-term damage. I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the problem, as there has been considerable discussion about it. I will be interested to hear my right hon. Friend's comments when he replies.
I want to refer to the role of local authorities in connection with the Theatre Royal in Norwich and particularly the role of the Labour-controlled Norwich city council. To return to the good news, in 1969 Norwich city council effectively rescued the Theatre Royal from becoming a bingo hall. I do not want to be on record as making derogatory remarks about bingo. Nevertheless, the theatre's present role is the right one, and there are plenty of other venues for bingo. In 1970, the independent trust to which I have referred was formed and it received an annual grant of £20,000 from Norwich city council. In 1980, 10 years later, that grant stopped. Since then, although the lease on the theatre is free, there has been no cash support from the city council and there has been no support for building maintenance. That is a serious problem.
If we compare the Theatre Royal in Norwich with other provincial theatres, the problem becomes clear. The theatre royal in Nottingham, to which reference has already been made this evening, receives £397,000 in annual running costs from the city and £48,000 from the county. The Grand theatre in Swansea receives a £500,000 annual contribution from the city council. I am not necessarily arguing for vast tranches of local authority money for theatres; that may not be the right path to take. Nevertheless, in Norwich the city council has gradually withdrawn its commitment. Although the councillors sit as members of the independent trust and therefore take an interest—or meddle, depending on one's point of view— in the affairs of the Theatre Royal, their commitment in the form of cash up front has been decreasing. That is a problem which must be addressed and another reason why the appeal is of such importance.
Norwich city council must sort out its priorities. While withdrawing funds from the Theatre Royal—whatever the arguments about that may be—it is finding £375,000 to pour into a pop venue in the centre of Norwich. Many hon. Members have expressed support for pop music, but I confess that I am not one of them. Nevertheless, there is obviously a role and a need for pop music. However, many people in Norwich doubt whether that is the right way for the city council to spend as much as £375,000. Although the venue is not in my constituency-actually it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) — I know that my hon. Friend shares my view that that venue is a mistake. I know that the proposal is opposed by many local residents, who are rightly concerned about the effects on the locality. The proposal is also opposed by, or causes concern to, the local police. With a pop venue in the centre of Norwich, there is a risk of noise, disturbance and even — on a more serious point—of an increase in drug trafficking. Many of us are concerned about that.
Norwich city council must clearly decide its order of priorities. It is taking funds away from the Theatre Royal,

which enjoys a high prestige in Norfolk and the surrounding area, yet is putting money into a project which, at the very least, is dubious and has only limited support in the area.
Norwich city council must decide upon its attitude to the Theatre Royal. Either it will support the theatre generously or it will decide that it wants nothing more to do with it. The council may decide to give the building to the independent trust and so launch the theatre upon a new future. Whatever happens, there is no doubt that the Theatre Royal has been, and is, very popular with people throughout East Anglia. It has been well run — and is still very well run — and it provides a good variety of entertainment. For that reason, I am confident that people will make the necessary commitment to ensure the theatre's future, whatever decisions are taken in the next months or years.
I hope that the Government will take seriously my plea in the short term about the problem with touring companies and ensure that touring companies get to good, successful theatres such as the Theatre Royal, which is providing entertainment for all types of people in Norwich and the surrounding area. That is a serious point and I look forward to the Minister's response.
Bearing in mind the time factor, I will finish shortly, after I have made my main local point. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that we should have a complete free-for-all in the arts. Nor do I go along with Opposition spokesmen when they ask for endless tranches of money from local and central Government. We all know what nonsense that leads to if it is taken to extremes. On the whole, I support the balance which the Government are expressing and I support the Government's motion. I do not agree with the usual carping amendment from the alliance parties or the inevitable critical amendment from the Labour party. I am therefore very pleased to support the Government motion and I hope that my right hon. Friend will reply to my local points which concern my constituency and the surrounding area.

Mr. Peter Pike: The importance of the arts has been shown by the length of the debate. As hon. Members have said, this is the first time that the arts have been discussed on a Government motion. The debate has gone on longer than the Government's business managers assumed. It is right that that has happened, because the arts are an important subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) referred to the cotton mill in Paisley which, some years ago, employed about 15,000 workers but now employs only 350. That picture of industry is repeated throughout the country as new technology has caused fewer people to be employed. It is realistic to accept that fewer people will be employed in industry, even if there is an economic revival and if we correct the problems associated with the Governrnent's policies towards manufacturing industries, and with the fact that we import £7·5billion more manufactured goods than we export. If we are to compete in the world market place, new technology must be introduced. We cannot bury our heads in the sand.
In future, the work load will have to be distributed differently. Obviously, industries must create the wealth. It is for the Government and Parliament to decide how


that wealth should be used. We must ensure that the public have available to them activities in which to participate, whether it is sport or the arts and whether they are viewers or participants. In either case, it is right that public money should be spent in that way. I make no apology for supporting this type of policy. It shows one of the main differences between the Labour party and the Conservative party. The Labour party is prepared to spend public money on providing the essential services required by the electorate.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse!) referred to the military bands, which have a role to play. I like military bands. They give enjoyment to people in many parts of the country. But I disagree with the hon. Gentleman in one respect. I believe that the Royal Marines school of music in Deal does a far better job than Kneller hall. That is a somewhat biased view because I did my national service in the Royal Marines some years ago.
The Opposition have said that the Government's business incentives scheme tends to have the greatest effect in the best-provided areas and tends to support safe activities. That is true. The scheme does not have the effect on the regions that we would like. I supported the Government's Budget proposals last year to change taxation arrangements and provide for covenants and support for the arts. That was a welcome move, but I hope that the Government will go further in publicising those changes and ensuring that people are aware of what is available.
The regions do not fare as well as the south, because industry head offices are increasingly based in London, so that there are satellite industries in the regions. There is not, therefore, the same involvement by head office as there was when industry was growing up in Lancashire, the midlands and so on. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) referred to the Royal opera house. He should meet the people there and see exactly what is involved. The scale of operations is much bigger than I had imagined. Opera should not be just for an elite. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South said, television has given opera wider appeal than was envisaged.

Mr. Dicks: Sir Peter Hall, in a debate that I had with him, made the same point about the hard work of the opera house and the problems that it faces. He is one of the highest-paid part-time civil servants it has been my misfortune to come across. He has made a fortune out of public subsidies.

Mr. Pike: I do not wish to pursue that line. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes to the opera house one morning and sees exactly what is involved. He will find that its problems are much more difficult than those faced by ordinary theatres, which have one long-running production and therefore need only one set at a time. At the opera house, because of rehearsals and different performances, it is common to have three complete sets and a variety of costumes used in one day. I believe that the Royal opera house has a case.
There is controversy about the proposed redevelopment of the opera house site, especially in respect of the demolition of the floral hall. I believe that the scheme is bold and imaginative and will tackle some of the financial

problems of Covent Garden. There are many good features in the proposals and we must look to developments of that type.
One Conservative Member suggested that, during the development, the Lyceum would provide a good alternative venue. I do not object to the Lyceum being brought back into use as a theatre, but it would be marvellous if, while Covent Garden cannot be used, the royal opera were sited elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I stress "United Kingdom" because we must remember that there are other areas apart from England. I must point out, however, that I represent an English constituency. My constituents remember when Sadlers Wells and the Old Vic were hosted in Burnley during the war because those companies had to move from London. Nevertheless, we reached a time when there was not a single live theatre left in the town.
The Minister gave an impressive long list of places that he had visited. If he wants to visit Burnley and see what is happening in that constituency, I am sure that my constituents will be pleased to welcome him and to show him what the council is trying to do. The National Trust property, Gawthorpe hall, is in Burnley. It is run partly by Lancashire county council. The Select Committee on the Environment produced an excellent report on historic buildings. It referred to collections being kept in the house where they belong. It is important to do that. Gawthorpe hall contains one art form which has not been mentioned today — needlework and embroidery. The hall contains the Rachel Kay Shuttleworth collection, one of the finest collections in Britain. We are proud of that collection. People come from all over Britain to see it.
Burnley council runs the Towneley hall art gallery and museum. During the summer season, coach trips are made from Blackpool to the museum. This home belonged to the Towneley family and was acquired by the council in the early part of this century. The council does an excellent job. Admission is free. The average number of visitors is between 90,000 and 100,000 a year.
Burnley council's grant-related expenditure assessment figure is the same as that of a council that does not provide a museum and art gallery. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will reassure me that the Labour party's proposals will seek to correct that. The factor for museums and art galleries is based on the square footage within a borough council area of shops and restaurants. That is a crazy situation. It means that a council that is doing a good job gets exactly the same grant provision as a next-door council that may be doing nothing at all.
When I was leader of the council I and other council members met Ministers from the Department of the Environment, and we met them again after I was elected to this House. We have not yet been able to persuade them to change that system. The system is nonsense and needs to be replaced by one that bears some relationship to the provision of facilities by the local authority.
On 14 August last year Burnley council reopened the building formerly known as the mechanics institute, which was established some 100 years ago. It will now provide educational and other opportunities to people in Burnley. We re-opened it as a multi-purpose arts centre and it is now known as the Burnley Mechanics. When I was leader of the council we spent £229,000 renovating that building. It is adjacent to the town hall and had been allowed to become derelict. It was a listed building and we made it


wind and watertight. I was very much involved in the initial stages of the project to ensure that the building was brought back into use to provide an essential amenity for the people of Burnley.
The final cost of the scheme was £2·343 million, but the only grants that we received were £30,000 from the northwest arts council and about £68,000 from the north-west tourist board, which has a tourist office within the building. During the first six months the centre attracted about 26,000 people to pay-for functions, and 75 functions have been held in the main theatre hall. Of course there are other rooms in the building for other events, and rehearsals are held in other parts of the premises. It has bar facilities and a caféand those, together with other facilities, have ensured that the centre has become a live part of Burnley town centre.
No one could criticise the council for a single penny of the money that was spent on that centre, but because the council spent that money and was already receiving maximum grant it got no more money from the Government and the cost of running the building has to be completely borne by the ratepayers. The council estimates that the income for the forthcoming year will be £289,000. The cost of running the centre for the same period will be £748,000, giving a net cost of £459,000 which in the case of Burnley means 6p on the rates. That shows how crucial it is to change the assessment factor to assist councils to provide this type of amenity.
My constituency is fortunate in having a large number of amateur groups, all of which are alive and flourishing and provide shows to a first-class standard. In many cases they are as good as the shows in the west end of London and there have been many standing ovations.
It is important that, as well as having spectators, we have participants, and we must encourage participation because at the end of the day that is what it is all about. Before I was elected to this House I worked in industry making television tubes. I still have an interest in television, but live theatre has more to offer and we appreciate seeing the enthusiam and the effort that goes into productions.
There is an extremely good youth theatre in Burnely and that bodes well for the future of our Gilbert and Sullivan society and for all the other societies that we have in Burnley. The youth theatre is exteremely good. It has its own premises in the Quarry theatre in Burnley, thanks to a Manpower Services Commission scheme and the council. The youth theatre has tremendous financial difficulties. It gets some support from the Stocks Massey bequest, a fund established by the brewing family in Burnley. The family is no longer there but the fund still exists and the income from it can be used for this sort of purpose.
The young people in that theatre are important. I have a vested interest in them because, eventually, my daughter wants to go into the theatre and is an active participant in the youth theatre. Not only does that theatre encourage young people to participate in musical shows and plays and other types of entertainment, but it also encourages them to learn other work in front of or behind the stage —work which is an important part of the arts world. The theatre would not survive if people did not do that type of work.
This is the type of venture that we should encourage. The youth theatre staged "West Side Story" at the Burnley Mechanics, had standing ovations every night and the

show was booked solid several weeks before it opened. Just over a week ago it staged a performance of a play by Paul Abbott, a scriptwriter for "Coronation Street" who lives in Burnley. The play was based on an idea by the young people and was a great success. We have to encourage that type of creativity, whether in photography that was spoken about earlier or in any other field. We must have arts facilities that people can see and enjoy arid in which they can participate. Money spent in that way whether by local authorities, Government, or through sponsorship by industry, is money well spent.
The Government should give greater priority to such activities and I hope that we can persuade them to move in that direction. If we cannot I am sure that the Labour Government when elected will certainly move in that direction.

Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has spoken with knowledge and enthusiastic loyalty about the arts in his constituency, and his words were expressed in the very best spirit of the debate. Having listened to his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), however, I was left with the clear impression that the one art form that would assuredly flourish under a Labour Government would be the printing of bank notes.
I can offer some comfort to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) who, in all the circumstances, gave us a virtuoso performance by expounding simultaneously the arts policies of the Liberal party and the SDP. There is a predecent for the difficulties in which those two parties find themselves. Maeterlinck shot his cat while he was practising for a duel with Debussy.
The genuineness and effectiveness of the Government's commitment to the arts is manifest. The establishment of the National Heritage Memorial Fund and of authors' public lending right, the launch of the business sponsorship incentive scheme, the 1986 Budget with its incentives for giving to the arts, the achievement of a 15 per cent. increase above the general rise in the cost of living in central Government spending on the arts, in the context of expanding plural funding for the arts, are all landmarks in the success of the Government's policies. In a curmudgeonly style, Opposition Members have had to acknowledge that in recent years the arts in Britain have been a great success.

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this interesting point?

Mr. Howarth: Not at this moment. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 25 minutes. It is now late, and I hope that he will permit me to get a little into my speech.
My right hon. Friend's latest personal achievement is to establish the principle of three-year indicative funding, and that will be enormously valuable. He emphasised the importance of continuity and stability, and the ability of arts organisations to plan ahead. I should like to return to that point.
I am proud to represent Stratford-on-Avon in this House. I am never more proud than on occasions when the subject of our proceedings is the arts. I am proud that the home of the Royal Shakespeare Company is in my constituency, and I am proud to be a governor.
The RSC epitomises the excellence of British theatre. Its current repertoire includes highly acclaimed productions of "Richard II", "Macbeth" and "Romeo and Juliet". That is the classic Shakespearean canon, but the company has also been packing them in with its recent revival of "Kiss Me Kate".
The repertoire of its company is worldwide. In 1984–85, the company played in Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Basle, Barcelona, Munich, Hamburg, Warsaw, Los Angeles, New York and Washington. In its annual report, the British Council observed that the performances given by the RSC in Warsaw achieved more than any diplomatic initiative to Poland in years.
The RSC makes an important contribution to our economy in the fields of tourism and exports. In 1984–85, the company won the Queen's award for exports. This year, the RSC productions scheduled on Broadway are "Les Miserables" and "Les Liaisons Dangereuses".
I mention these successes because I think that the House should honour such a record, but also because the RSC has fulfilled every behest and maxim of the Government. The Government exort arts organisations to practise self-help and embrace plural funding. The proportion of its costs which the RSC achieves from box office receipts is 60 per cent.—significantly higher as a proportion than in other major subsidised theatres.
The company is now establishing itself in two new theatres at no cost to the taxpayer. The Swan theatre was given, in a most generous benefaction, to the company. Its running costs are separately accounted for, and it is at least breaking even on them. At the end of this month, the company will start to play at the Mermaid theatre, where the RSC management has been able to negotiate an agreement with producers whereby they guarantee costs and carry the risks of any losses that the productions might incur.
The RSC is efficient—the Priestley report testified to that—and it is entrepreneurial. Yet in this year, 1986–87, it is heading towards a deficit of probably £1 ·1million. Notwithstanding all the excellence and efforts of the company, this is the prospect. Why should that be so? It is certainly not the case that costs have overrun. They are under budget.
There are two particular causes which have come together in an ill-starred conjunction. In 1985, the decision was taken that the Barbican repertoire for 1986 should be somewhat more experimental than had previously been the case. Plays of excellent dramatic quality, including "Mephisto" and "The Danton Affair", were not box office hits. However, the company, in staging these productions, was responding positively to criticisms that it felt were constructive and it felt that it should take risks. Furthermore, in 1986 there was a significant fall in the number of visitors from overseas, principally because of the alarm about threats of terrorism. The consequence of these two factors was that box office receipts at the Barbican came out 50 per cent. below what they had been budgeted to be.
Theatre is inevitably a high risk business. It is inevitable that there will be ups and downs. But with our system of financing it is impossible for an organisation such as the RSC to ride the occasional bad year. The problems that the company has experienced financially in 1986–87 are one-off problems — there is no reason why they will

recur. None the less, it will be left with the consequences of these problems for a long time unless action is taken, and it is necessary for us to look carefully again at the long-term funding of the company. With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), there is no way in which a business such as the RSC can build up reserves to create a contingency fund so that it can be tided over the occasional bad year in the way that another fully commercial business could be.
The Government commissioned the Priestley report to ascertain whether the organisations at which it looked were efficient, and to seek advice on what would be the appropriate pattern of funding for the future. As the House knows, Priestly gave the RSC a clean bill of health in terms of the efficiency of its management. However, the report went on to say that the company was "palpably underfunded". It urged on the Government the pressing need to establish conditions of financial stability. It said that the Government should write off the accumulated deficit and raise the base grant to a realistic £4·9 million in the money of that time and thereafter maintain it in real terms.
The response of the Government was given by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, Lord Gowrie, in the other place. He said that the Government broadly accepted the findings and conclusons of the Priestley report, and he acted on that. The deficit was written off, and the base grant was indeed established at £4·9 million to enable the company
to operate on a satisfactory financial basis in the future.
Lord Gowrie made it clear that his purpose was to establish a satisfatory base line. In saying that he broadly accepted the Priestely recommendations that must indeed have been his intention, because the central Priestely recommendation was that that baseline should be established and maintained.
The arts world and a much wider public welcomed and applauded that decision. However, as is inevitable — Opposition Members delude themselves if they suppose it would ever not be the case—there were constraints on public spending and there were competing claims on the Arts Council budget. As a consequence, in practice the base line funding, although established at the new level, was progressively eroded in successive years. In a period in which the RPI has risen by 15 per cent., the Arts Council grant to the RSC has risen by only 6 per cent. In the same period, the RSC's earnings rose by 33 per cent. In 1984–85 and 1985–86, in those difficult years when the baseline funding was being eroded the RSC broke even because of its good management and efforts. It could hardly have done more than it did. As a consequence of circumstances for which it cannot reasonably be blamed, it is however, heading towards deficit and the prospects for the company are grave.
What are its choices? It could carry forward the deficit, but that would mean that in future its budget would be increasingly burdened by compounding interest costs. Plainly, that would not be sensible. If it does not receive additional aid, it will be obliged to close one of its major centres. It can either close the Barbican or the Shakespeare Memorial theatre. I must tell the House that the council of management of the RSC is seriously contemplating those possibilities. But even as it contemplates them it knows that it is absurd to do so. If it had to act on either


of those possibilities, it would destroy the raison d'être of the theatre. There is no alternative but for the Government to help.

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: This is an important subject, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. I am in the middle of trying to explain my case.
The Government must once agan accept the logic of Priestley, which is inescapable. The Government will have to write off the deficit and once more give a realistic grant, or else we shall lose this great national artistic institution.
I appreciate the difficulty of my right hon. Friend as to indexation. I do not ask him specifically to commit himself to indexing the base grant for the RSC. The principle of indexation is a dangerous one in the wider context of public finances, and I can readily imagine that if my right hon. Friend were to commit himself to indexing the grant for any institution he would find himself beset by hordes of jealous claimants at the Office of Arts and Libraries. That situation would clearly be difficult and unsatisfactory.
What I do ask my hon. Friend is that he should look carefully at the circumstances of this case, at the qualities and value of the RSC, at the details of the predicament in which it has found itself, that he should assess what may be the balance of responsibility as between the company, the Arts Council and the Government for the problems that have arisen, that he should recollect the analysis that was made by his predecessor, and that he should accept that the Government and the Arts Council between them have a duty to ensure that the RSC does not, through no fault of its own, encounter catastrophe.
My right hon. Friend's serious and practical championship of the arts is widely recognised. I do not ask him to give here and now his detailed response to the problems that I have described, but I hope that we shall receive a considered, constructive response from him shortly.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I am sure that the Minister will have listened sympathetically to the speech that has just been made, although to some extent it contradicts some of the hon. Gentleman's economic and political philosophies, but we all have that problem from time to time.
I do not know who wrote the Minister's speech at the opening of the debate, but whoever did, he or she is in line to become a scriptwriter for a Ken Russell fantasy. The film opens with the Minister's weak and anaemic voice intoning that there has been an economic miracle in Britain in the late 1980s and that all the people are prosperous and joyous. Meanwhile, the camera focuses on a screaming baby whose mother is homeless, cuts to a youth who is unemployed and has slashed his wrists and then to a woman who is flooded with tears in a DHSS office. The Minister lives in a different world to the one in which I live, but I shall not develop that theme.
One of the disturbing developments that has emerged in the locust years of this Conservative Government is the notion that art is an industry like any other in the modern world. Therefore, its output should be determined by market forces, its practitioners should make a close study of consumerism, the problems of marketing and

distribution and the artist should no longer regard himself as a creative individual but as an entrepreneur who, if he wishes to maximise his profits, must learn to deal in oligopoly, duopoly, loss leaders and a variety of other economic concepts.
In this system, where art is an industry, we are supposed to give thanks when 1,000 craft shops open up this year. I am not sure what we are supposed to do when the same 1,000 craft shops go bankrupt next year.
In this system some people will succeed. I have no doubt that the new superstars of the art world — the designers—will succeed, particularly if, in addition to their skills in design, they are prepared to study the complex subjects of advertising and marketing and they can cope with psychology, sexual relations, fantasy, identity, escapism and decoration.
But if we live in this world in which art is an industry, as we see the growth of mass production and consumerism it is inevitable that art will become more universal. It is certain that art will lose much of its sense of place, history and identity in terms of locality, community, race, class and nation.
If art is entirely to be regarded as an industry, much of it will be ephemeral in the modern world, much of it will be junk that degrades the artist and the consumer, and it will all be described as value free. Possibly the best and only thing that will come out of it will be that all over the world we can put on our Benetton tee shirts and designer jeans and watch "Dallas" without shame. That is not a notion of art that we should encourage people to stick to, although it is one in which the Conservative party would like the public to believe.
However, there are other notions of art. There is the notion that art is some kind of idealised activity that is good for us. I suppose that in that group I would put the Minister with his what I would describe as Benthamite utilitarianism. I would also put in that group the Fabian idealism of many Opposition Members.
Often when people say that art is good for us they are saying that it is part of the process of self discovery. But in that notion of art—it is not one that I particularly like or hold to—the artist often sees himself as some kind of superior person; some kind of philosopher king. That is a notion which artists in the western world have basically ascribed to themselves since the period of the romantics.
There is a third view of art—someone was asking for some definition of art and artists earlier; he is not here to hear it but never mind — and that is that art is an activity which mediates between the world as it is and the world as we would like it to be. If it does that, it performs roughly the same function that we as politicians perform. I cannot think what else we do if it is not that.
If art performs that function of mediation it is likely to be creative, imaginative, intellectual and emotional, and, because the world is critical and disturbing and full of conflict, art will be critical, disturbing and full of conflict. I have some sympathy with that notion of art.
But there is another notion of art which is that art is an instrument of social change, perhaps best expressed by Stuart Hall when he says that the idea that we can get radical change while the dominant cultural attitudes remain unchanged in society is patently ridiculous.
According to that concept of art, culture becomes a battleground for change. It does so because it affects all aspects of our life—what we wear, how and under what


conditions goods are produced, the very language that we use and the images by and through which we express ourselves.
In that sense, art is not just about painting, theatre and dance; it is about education, architecture, town planning and ecology. I want to come back to that concept of art in a moment because it is the one with which I have most sympathy and it is one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) referred.
But there is a last definition of art that we have seen recently and that is the definition of art that we saw in a six-part series on television called "State of the Art" written by Sandy Nairne, who, I gather is one of our supporters, or so he told me at a recent conference. I hope that that is right since I have now made it public.
In "State of the Art" Sandy Nairne seemed to be saying that art is a condition which exists in a vacuum; that it is fragmented, without construction, and that somehow it defies any form of analysis. Therefore, he is capable of making six programmes in which he can discuss art without saying a single word about the way in which the Arts Council mediates state patronage. I find that bizarre. I also find it bizarre that he can present to the British public the idea that one can see post-modernism as a form of self-alienation which is pushed to such a degree that we could even be made to view our own destruction as an aesthetic experience of the highest order. I simply cannot view art in that way.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): Rather laboured.

Mr. Sedgemore: I notice that the "son of civilisation" is twittering away as usual, but if the "son of civilisation" could pause for a moment he may learn something to his advantage, even about his father's paintings.
If we can accept the notion that art can be an instrument of change, we should consider what has taken place in other countries. This morning I was reading a paper by Franco Bianchini. He saids that in 1976, when the Socialists and Communists took over from the Christian Democrats in Rome, they decided that they wished to bring together art and culture together. They wanted to show that there were no great divisions and schisms between the working class and middle class view of art. They achieved that with the Estate Romana. There are three reasons why we could not achieve a similar success in this country.
First, Rome has a citywide governing body, but we have abolished the GLC. Secondly, one cannot have this type of big artistic concept without heavily subsidised public transport systems because such a concept does not operate from the periphery but from the centre. However, public transport subsidies have been reduced and removed in London. Thirdly, this type of notion depends on the insistence of people that art is important and that theatre, ballet and dance are at least as important as spaghetti westerns or horror movies. Unlike the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) I believe that we must break away from the latter notion. We could learn a lesson from Italy about the ability to use art as an instrument of social change.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South that possibly the most powerful cultural influence on the lives of most people in Britain is broadcasting and

inside broadcasting — television. If we want to change the world and change attitudes towards the world, access to broadcasting and access to television is one of the most important influences that we can discuss. It should not be discussed in the abstract but in specific terms.
By and large, we tend to discuss television purely in terms of how much television time we are prepared—either through the IBA or by statute — to give to independent producers. I accept that that is important. I am in favour of giving 25 per cent. of the franchise holders programme time to independent producers, but let us also give 25 per cent. of all the time of those franchise holders to the community. Let us allow the community and the people reflect themselves rather than see themselves reflected by other people. We should give them editorial control over some news and current affairs programmes. Let us give them control over drama, entertainment and other things that are shown on television. It is important that the end result is not bad television so let us also give the community the directors, producers and professional crews to produce good television.
If we truly believe in plurality in our society—it is a word that people throw around with astonishing ease—above all else we must break up the monopolies held by those who hold television franchises so that control is not given solely to persons of wealth and power. If we are serious about breaking up those monopolies and achieving that type of plurality, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South is right — one cannot do that if broadcasting is kept under the control of a Ministry that is concerned with suppression, repression, vetting, spying and censorship.
Broadcasting belongs to a Ministry for the arts. Perhaps for other reasons, the Select Committee has come up with what surely is an eminently sensible all-party proposal. I hope that my hon. Friend and I can persuade our Front Bench to go further along the road than they have already done and I hope that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) can also persuade his Front Bench to go further along that road.
Although this has been an interesting debate, I am sure that hon. Members have heard too many speeches already. I wish, however, to make one more point. Throughout Britain there are thousands of schools, but when I worked in television I came across only one, the Tower Hamlets school for girls, where art is part of a core curriculum. This issue reflects a simple proposal contained in a Gulbenkian report many years ago. Why is it that no education authority in Britain has had the determination and imagination to make art part of the core curriculum? If we were prepared to do that, we would show individuals from an early age that we are serious about the importance of the subject.

Mr. Fisher: This has been a debate of sharply distinct views, and in being so it has addressed the central question posed by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), which was whether there is still a bipartisan arts policy in the House. The answer is that there is not. That is clear from the speeches made from both sides of the House. Any cosy agreement that might have existed before exists no longer because there has been a recognition on both sides that there are important, sharp and distinct differences in our political views.
That is not to say that there is no common ground. There is some important common ground on which we can build. There is a common interest and sincerity of view and the House well knows the sincerity, concern and expertise of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South, for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). They have brought their important knowledge and concern to previous arts debates and they have done so again today. The same can be said of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), the alliance's spokesman on the arts.
I am sure that the House will have been impressed also by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan), whose work and knowledge has been acknowledged by hon. Members on both sides of the House, it having been demonstrated in the sittings of the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts. The House will have been interested in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), in what might have been his first speech in an arts debate. He made many telling and interesting comments from a local authority perspective following his experience as a leader of a local authority. I can assure him that I have taken on board his remarks about rate support grant.
There might be some agreement on specifics. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate the excellent report in 1982 of the Select Committee, which was chaired by Mr. Christopher Price. It is sad that the Government have not implemented more of its recommendations. There are many constructive recommendations to be implemented in future on the basis of a mutuality of interest.
There may even be common ground on the result of the cuts that have been imposed. The Minister might not agree, but I think that there is a general understanding on both sides of the House. The clear and well described comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton brought the result home to us. Hon. Members will remember him talking about buckets in museums and the comments of Sir Roy Strong that he quoted. I could assure my hon. Friend, if he were in his place, that one of the first and most urgent tasks for an incoming Labour Government will be to carry out a national audit to ascertain the state of our arts buildings. The Minister could begin that work if he were seriously interested in ascertaining the state of the arts in Britain. It would not be a costly exercise, and in taking that course he would demonstrate his good intent. The result of the exercise might be extremely embarrassing for the Government following their stewardship over the past seven years. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would find, as the Select Committee has found and as hon. Members on both sides know, that the fabric of many of our finest arts buildings is in an appalling condition.
There might even be some common ground on the need for more money to be spent on the arts. With the exception of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), I think that that is a common concern, whether it he the Royal Shakespeare company or other forms and media within the arts.

Mr. Cormack: It is refreshing to hear the hon. Gentleman's more considered comments in replying to the debate when compared with some of his introductory comments.

Mr. Fisher: I am grateful for that compliment. I fear, however, that this is where we may start to part company. I have sketched out the areas in which there has been agreement, and now I must turn to the important and real differences. They are not about the level or even the source of funding, whether it is from local authorities, the private sector or central Government. They are about perspective. They are political and economic differences.
It is quite clear to anybody listening to the debate that the perspective from which the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about cultural industries should be seen — the importance of the new technologies, about satellite, publishing and broadcasting—is not fully understood by Conservative Members. I urge them to look carefully at my hon. Friend's remarks. We must look into our own lives and see that the arts are not just a narrow definition of the subsidised arts that Conservative Members are talking about. They are a far wider and more powerful force in our lives. That is the big difference between the two sides of the House.
There is also a difference in ideology. The hon. Member for Canterbury talked about our great tradition. He mentioned the great heritage of acting. His knowledge of and sincerity about the theatre is undoubted. Of course he is right. We have a great tradition, but it is only part of the culture of this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West said, it reflects the brilliant ideas of people who have lived and are living here. But, as he said, they are essentially male, white and educated, mainly living in the south of the country, and fairly well off. It is perfectly fair and quite correct that their ideas should be expressed as well as possible, but they are not the expressions of all people in society.
We fool ourselves when we think that the great expressions of our culture, as characterised in our great acting tradition, carry the aspirations and experience of all our people. As my hon. Friend said, they do not carry the experience of people who are unemployed, who live in housing estates or who come from a totally different ethnic, religious and cultural background. It is important that we are a multicultural society, with cultures expressed in different art forms in different ways. That concept has not yet been fully taken on board by Conservative Members. It is not only a matter of that sort of experience; it is a matter, through art forms, of expressing how one sees oneself in relation to other people, the power that one may or may not have over determining one's life. the economics in which one lives, the ability to express oneself through work, one's relationship to one's housing and to one's potential.
The great heritage that has been referred to, though it exists and we are proud of it because it will carry our culture into the future, is not a complete picture. We have a wider culture than that.
It begs the question of whose culture we are talking about. Who owns the culture? In a magnificent and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham North-West recognised, off-the-cuff, impromptu speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) put his finger on many crucial areas which represent a distinct difference between hon. Members on both sides of the House. He mentioned the concentration of ownership in this culture and the national press. Three corporations, which are controlled by proprietors, apparently own 74 per cent. of circulation. That cannot be in the interests of


a wide variety of views in our society. My hon. Friend might also have mentioned the media and the way in which the same three companies and other companies are buying not only into newspapers but into radio and television and now satellite and film. Surely Conservative Members can see the importance of that and the power that it gives over the means of expression and, therefore, what can be expressed. My hon. Friend might also have mentioned books. Conservative Members must realise that they have only to go to the high streets in their constituencies to see the narrow range of books that are available for sale. There are 300,000 books in stock in this country, and 50,000 are printed every year. They contain some of the greatest, most provocative, challenging, interesting, compelling ideas in any language, yet only a narrow range of books is available in the high street stores.

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman's points are forceful and important, and nobody would dismiss them, but is it not far better that three private people should be fighting for control of circulation rather than that there should be state control? I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman is advocating state control, but is there not some common ground between us?

Mr. Fisher: I shall deal with that point later.

Mr. Buchan: The dissemination of journals and books is controlled by two distributors—W. H. Smith and Son and John Menzies. I know that that is so, because I have been trying to get Tribune disseminated through them and there have been difficulties.

Mr. Fisher: The crucial point is that both in the case of the national press and the distribution of books and records we see the free market, so called, narrowing and constricting choice. The Conservative party tells us that the free market widens opportunity and that it also widens choice, but we see that exactly the reverse is true and that the free market and the interplay of ownership narrow free choice, whether in retailing or in the ownership of newspapers.
The next Labour Government will seek to widen the range of press ownership. They will seek diversity of ownership, not ownership by the state. Britain is the only country that imposes virtually no regulations over press ownership. That cannot be in the long-term interests of our culture or of our democracy. These are substantial differences between the two sides of the House.
Furthermore, that control is not just a question of ownership. It takes other forms. In a part of his speech, with which I did not fully agree, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) referred to the Reithian concept of broadcasting, which is to inform, educate and entertain. They have been valuable linchpins of our public sector broadcasting philosophy, but they need to be augmented and extended. The audience is thought to have a passive role, either listening to radio or watching television and being the recipient of somebody else's views and somebody else's culture. The opportunities that the technical capability of community radio offer provide us with the hope of a different and a much more intereactive relationship between audiences that will extend those valuable Reithian concepts to a participating and a plural system of broadcasting.
There are huge differences of view among hon. Members about censorship and contol. Although the Conservative party does not understand this, people all over the country, of all political persuasions, were shocked when they saw on their television screens the arm of the state, in the form of the police, breaking into offices in the middle of the night and taking away rolls of film. It was a slur and a stain on the culture of this country. I hope that Conservative Members will understand the importance of that point in this arts debate, because it goes to the heart of the question about who controls our culture and whose culture it is, anyway.
There are substantial political, economic and industrial differences between the two sides of the House. The Government's view is narrow and wholly out of date. It is also wholly out of tune with people's experience. Furthermore, it is a very controlled view, whether of ownership or censorship. The next Labour Government will offer a far wider and more plural and enabling view. It will provide much greater choice for the consumer and also a much greater opportunity of choice for the producer and the artist.
The points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South will be taken on board. Planning, transport, jobs and housing must interrelate so that people are able to reach arts locations. The next Labour Government will set in train a building expansion programme that will respond to the needs of the people. We must ensure that we build a physically acceptable society. Houses are physical pieces of sculpture. We must create an environment that is worth living in.
There are huge differences between the two sides of the House. We reject the Government's restricted view of the arts and many of the points that have been made tonight. We shall therefore vote against the Government's motion.

Mr. Luce: At least there is one piece of common ground between both sides of the House: this has been a good-humoured debate in which there has been widespread participation by hon. Members on both sides. That in itself justifies the decision of the Government to have a debate on the arts on a substantive motion. My records go back only 30 years but I am told that for at least 30 years there has been no debate on the arts on a substantive motion in Government time. The fact that the debate has gone on for a considerable period demonstrates that the arts is a singularly important subject and that not only hon. Members but many people throughout the country care about it.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on his maiden speech as spokesman on the arts for the Labour party. I disagree, however, with much of what he said, particularly in his opening and closing remarks. I listened, too, with respect to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). For 18 months he and I were opposite numbers. He cares passionately about the arts. Again, he has a different attitude and approach to the arts; nevertheless, I respect his views. I also noted the different approach between him and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. I remain baffled about Labour party policy. It is confusing on defence, to say the least, and it is even more confusing on the arts.
I deplore the habit of Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, of feeling


constantly that they have to spread gloom and doom about what is happening in the arts world when they know perfectly well, if they consider the scene on the ground throughout the country, that expansion is taking place. I think they feel that if they accept that something good is happening, the Government will immediately step in and claim all the credit. The credit goes in two ways—first, to the people, the consumers, who want to enjoy the arts, and secondly, to the great talent in artistry of all kinds. That is proved by the great and growing interest shown by the public.
I criticise the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, too for his tunnel vision. He talked about the need for a broad strategy yet the Opposition litmus test of success in the arts always seems to be whether there is Government funding. The Opposition adopt a churlish attitude to the private sector. The hon. Gentleman brought in the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), with whom I disagree on many issues. Again the hon. Gentleman poured cold water on the concept of encouraging the private sector to play its part.
There is also a tendency for some Opposition Members — I do not think this applies to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. Central—to pour considerable scorn on the attitude of the consumer who, after all, is the person who spends more money on the arts than anyone else, and who decides what he wants to see and what is good and bad. Yet Her Majesty's Opposition and sections of the arts world seem to think that creativity and consumerism do not go together. That is an astonishing attitude.
There have been many stimulating and interesting speeches. I do not think the House would wish me to answer every single point. Indeed, I could imagine the reaction if I were to try to do that. However, I pick on my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) because he made a colourful speech. He reflected the feeling of many people, to which I referred earlier, that there should not be taxpayer support for the arts. I made it plain that I disagreed with that view.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be pleased that the Bech theatre at Hillingdon, which I think is in his constituency, is being run effectively by commercial management and as a result is saving the taxpayer and the ratepayer a considerable amount of money.
I listened with great interest and care to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratfordon-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who represents that constituency marvellously and is a governor of the Royal Shakespeare Company, which brings the highest credit to this country and the greatest enjoyment to many people of all backgrounds. What the hon. Gentleman had to say must be taken into account very carefully, especially by the Arts Council, which has to take the direct decision on the level of funding, but it is important that I know what he feels about it.
My hon. Friend realises that the Royal Shakespeare Company, like the royal opera house, has implemented many of the recommendations of the Priestley report in consultation with the Arts Council and that the Government agreed to provide additional funds to eliminate deficits and to increase basic funding for both these companies. I am glad to note that my hon. Friend accepted the argument that if we start on a policy of insulating one or two arts bodies from the world of

inflation by inflation-proofing, we will be in an extremely difficult area. I am glad that my hon. Friend acknowledges that would not be the right way to proceed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) made a very important speech in which he rightly drew attention to the range of arts activities in Norwich and in particular the Norwich Theatre Royal and the importance of touring companies. I accept that entirely. If our policy is, as it must be, to bring about excellence in the arts and to make it available to the maximum number of people, touring, especially by the best companies, is of great importance. I heard his views with great care. My hon. Friend spoke of the importance and the value to his area of the Arts Council's "Glory of the Garden" policy of shifting more resources and support to other parts of the country. I, too, welcome that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire. South (Mr. Cormack) has devoted years in this House to supporting and working for the heritage and all forms of art. He made an important speech. He asked my opinion about the royal opera house and long-term development plans. No decisions have yet been taken and planning approval still has to be given by the city of Westminster. Nevertheless, I regard its longer term development proposals, which are based upon private enterprise loans, as highly imaginative and deserving of much interest. I still have to take the decisions but I place my view on record in response to my hon. Friend's question.
I am glad that my hon. Friend drew attention to the importance of crafts. At least 20,000 people in this country enjoy crafts in one way or another. I hope that number is expanding rapidly. I welcome most warmly the fact that my hon. Friend has played a leading part in launching a new scheme to allow fellowships for young people in crafts. I give my strongest support to that. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the initiative he has taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made a splendid speech. If he will forgive me, I will not dwell on the importance of military bands because he has drawn that to the attention of the House and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on many occasions. On the question of the danger, as he puts it, of VAT being imposed on imports of works of art, I agree with him that it is a matter of the greatest importance. We have a highly successful art trade in this country. Both the sixth and seventh directives could threaten this trade. Let me make my position absolutely clear. I will oppose anything that I believe would damage the successful art trade of this country. I am convinced that is the view of the Government.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) made an interesting speech raising marry issues. I am glad that, as I understood it, he endorsed the arm's-length principle as I had been anxious in recent months about what seemed to be a weakening of the all-party support for that principle. If we break away from that principle there will be a great danger of direct central Government intervention in artistic decisions. I believe that the freedom of expression of artists is of fundamental importance.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Luce: I hope that the House will bear with me; it is right that I should answer the questions raised in the debate. The hon. Gentleman has already made his speech.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East also drew attention to the marketing scheme. I should correct one point. The hon. Gentleman felt that the scheme did not help those who did not have much money to spend because the range within which people can apply for an award is between £5,000 and £10,000, to be matched by the Government. It is, however, perfectly possible for a group of subsidised companies to get together and put in a joint claim. I hope that that will help smaller companies.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan), who is no longer present, referred to the importance of supporting the arts in all parts of the country, including his own area. I should point out that there has been an enormous shift of resources from the Arts Council to the regional arts associations, which now receive some £20 million of taxpayers' money to support their work in all parts of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) made an important speech. I commend the marvellous work that he has done as a founder member of the Theatres Trust and the role that he plays today. I am grateful to him for his speech and for drawing attention to the Cork report, which is still being considered by the Arts Council, on the importance of the work of the theatre in this country. I believe that I gave my hon. Friend some wrong information from a sedentary position. I thought that he was referring to the Swan theatre at Stratford, to which Mr. Koch, an American, gave magnificent support. I understand that my hon. Friend was referring to the Old Vic. In that instance, the support was given by a Canadian, Mr. Ed Mirvish. Again, I am grateful indeed to my hon. Friend for his speech on the theatre.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central referred to public libraries, and it should be made clear that my duties cover libraries as well as the arts. I believe that this country has almost the finest set of public libraries in the world. They are outstanding. The hon. Gentleman sought to suggest that the system was collapsing, but that is nonsense. He highlighted certain selective figures, saying that 200 libraries had closed, but libraries have also been opened. Just recently, I opened one in Princes Risborough. It is not in the least surprising that there is such mobility, with some libraries closing and others opening. For the next financial year, there will be an increase of 14 per cent. in the amount of money allocated to libraries and local museums. I stress, too, that there has been an increase in the number of books stocked by libraries. In 1979 there were 106 million. Today there are 113 million. If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central says that there has been a decline, he is entirely wrong. I must make it clear that his comments about a decline in the public library service were absolute nonsense.

Mr. Fisher: If the Minister is telling the library world that the public library service will receive an increase of 14 per cent. in the money available to it next year, I am sure that the whole House will welcome that. But my figures about the book fund cut are true and accurate, and reflected in every local authority public library service.
The number of books on the shelves depends on how fast they are depreciated and moved off, but one has only to go into a public library to see the very poor state of the

books. Moreover, because prices have risen astronomically only a tiny proportion of the needs of local communities can be met by any library authority. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.

Mr. Luce: I take seriously what the hon. Gentleman says, because it is important that we maintain the high standard of our public libraries. The book fund, allocation of money, as chosen by English local authorities—it is their choice—has gone down, not by 34 per cent., as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central suggested, but by 9 per cent. The fact is that the number of books has gone up. It is up to the libraries to decide how to allocate their money. There are information services in our libraries and an increase in leisure services and there is also the need to maintain our book services. It is for them to choose how they spend the increase in the money that they will be allocated in the coming year.
We have had a full and constructive debate on the arts. There is a serious divide in some respects between the two sides of the House but, where there can be common ground, I welcome it. My position and that of the Government is that we want to create the best possible climate and framework for the arts to flourish. We want there to be the greatest degree of freedom of expression and the greatest scope for all the talents of British artists and for the arts to flourish.

Mr. Freud: rose—

Mr. Luce: I believe that that is best achieved by encouraging the greatest possible diversity of funding of the arts. That in itself enables one to spread the risks and to guarantee the greatest freedom of expression. I wish only that the Opposition would encourage a little more the flowering of funding and encourage greater support from the private sector and not depend just on the state sector.
Surely the key test is what is happening in the arts on the ground today. The story is a good one. The arts are flowering and that is due largely to the achievements of the British people and British artists. We are creating a healthy framework for that to succeed. The reputation of British arts is high in Britain and the world today. Therefore, I call upon the House to support this motion and reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 98.

Division No.118]
[9.50 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McGuire, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Madden, Max


Bermingham, Gerald
Martin, Michael


Boyes, Roland
Nellist, David


Bruce, Malcolm
Pike, Peter


Buchan, Norman
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Robertson, George


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Sheerman, Barry


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Snape, Peter


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Deakins, Eric
Woodall, Alec


Dormand, Jack
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Fisher, Mark


Freud, Clement
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Mr. Allen McKay.






NOES


Alexander, Richard
Lester, Jim


Amess, David
Lilley, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Baldry, Tony
Lyell, Nicholas


Batiste, Spencer
Malone, Gerald


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bottom ley, Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Merchant, Piers


Bruinvels, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Butterfill, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Carttiss, Michael
Moynihan, Hon C.


Cash, William
Neale, Gerrard


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Norris, Steven


Chope, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Colvin, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Cope, John
Powley, John


Cormack, Patrick
Raffan, Keith


Crouch, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Roe, Mrs Marion


Dykes, Hugh
Ryder, Richard


Emery, Sir Peter
Silvester, Fred


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Sims, Roger


Farr, Sir John
Spencer, Derek


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Steen, Anthony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Fry, Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Galley, Roy
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Gregory, Conal
Thurnham, Peter


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ground, Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Trippier, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Waller, Gary


Hayward, Robert
Watts, John


Heddle, John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Holt, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Wilkinson, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Jackson, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Wood, Timothy


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Yeo, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 25.

Division No. 119]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Cash, William


Amess, David
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Ancram, Michael
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Cope, John


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Crouch, David


Bottomley, Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bruinvels, Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Budgen, Nick
Emery, Sir Peter


Butterfill, John
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Carttiss, Michael
Farr, Sir John





Fenner, Dame Peggy
Neale, Gerrard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Neubert, Michael


Fry, Peter
Norris, Steven


Gale, Roger
Ottaway, Richard


Galley, Roy
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Portillo, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Raffan, Keith


Glyn, Dr Alan
Rhodes James, Robert


Gregory, Conal
Roe, Mrs Marion


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Ryder, Richard


Ground, Patrick
Silvester, Fred


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Sims, Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Spencer, Derek


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Steen, Anthony


Hayward, Robert
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Heddle, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Holt, Richard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourng)
Thorne, Neil (Word S)


Jessel, Toby
Thurnham, Peter


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Tracey, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Trippier, David


King, Rt Hon Tom
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lawrence, Ivan
Waller, Gary


Lester, Jim
Watts, John


Lilley, Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wiggin, Jerry


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Wilkinson, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Malone, Gerald
Winterton, Nicholas


Maude, Hon Francis
Wood, Timothy


Merchant, Piers
Yeo, Tim


Meyer, Sir Anthony


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Monro, Sir Hector
Mr. David Lightbown and


Moynihan, Hon C.
Mr. Robert Boscawen.




NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Madden, Max


Beith, A. J.
Martin, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Pike, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Buchan, Norman
Sheerman, Barry


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Snape, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Wilson, Gordon


Deakins, Eric
Woodall, Alec


Dormand, Jack
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Fisher, Mark


Freud, Clement
Tellers for the Noes:


Haynes, Frank
Mr. David Alton and


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on the success of its arts policy which is resulting in an expansion of arts and crafts throughout the country and greater protection of the national heritage; approves the Government's strategy of increasing the inflow of funds to the arts from a diversity of sources; welcomes the tax changes, including the new payroll giving scheme, which will stimulate giving to the arts by individuals and companies; applauds the Government's continuing commitment to promoting sponsorship of the arts through the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme; endorses the new arts marketing scheme, designed to encourage a keener awareness of the benefits to the arts of good marketing; and acknowledges the political commitment shown by the Government in the form of record levels of public support for the arts.

EC—United States Trade

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the unnumbered explanatory memorandum dated 31st January 1987, submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry, describing a draft Decision concerning the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America for the conclusion of negotiations under General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Article XXIV.6, and European Community Document No. 5062/87 and the Department's unnumbered explanatory memorandum, dated 23rd Feburary 1987, on the implementation of the Agreement; and welcomes the Agreement as the means of averting an exchange of retaliatory and counter-retaliatory trade measures between the United States and the Community which would have very serious consequences for EC-US trade, for the multilateral trading systems and for progress in the new round of multilateral trade negotiations now beginning in GATT.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained to the House on 3 February, in view of the urgency of settling the dispute by 30 January, we considered it better not to delay adoption of the Council Decision regarding the agreement until the Select Committee had had an opportunity to consider it. I should like to assure the House that no disrespect was intended in not following the normal scrutiny procedures on that occasion.
I should also inform the House that, in addition to the two implementing regulations described in the explanatory memorandum dated 23 February, the Commission has now submitted two further proposals to deal with the technical administration of the tariff quota and the technical administration of the tariff quotas for dried onions and plywood. These proposals were produced only yesterday in Brussels as informal working group documents, and they will be subject to the normal scrutiny procedures as soon as possible.
The motion that we are debating recognises the terms of settlement of a trade dispute between the European Community and the United States which, had it been allowed to escalate, could have caused severe damage to the trading prospects of certain industries on both sides of the Atlantic. The Community held firm under duress and in the face of threats to its trade from the United States which were not justified. The trade of several member states, including the United Kingdom, was directly threatened with prohibitive duty levels in the United States. We continued to work—in the end successfully—for a negotiated settlement, while making it clear that if the United States raised tariffs illegally and unilaterally we would respond.
There is, from time to time, talk in the press and other media about "trade wars" between the Community and the United States. Trade wars start like other wars— that is to say, in a mutual or perhaps unilateral view that the customary diplomatic processes of negotiation are no longer valid.
One side takes the view that the other side is applying unfair discrimination against its exports and takes retaliatory action against imports from the other side, which then leads to a series of further counter-retaliatory measures. The United States and the Community have not fallen into that trap. There has been no trade war. But the

risks remain, with United States' protectionists continuing to make much of the estimated $170 billion United States trade deficit last year.
Hon. Members will have read reports of a series of disputes over trade matters between the Community and the United States. The background is as follows. The United States Congress passed a number of measures last autumn which have had an adverse effect on imports, including imports from the United Kingdom. Consultations on, and objections to, these measures are being pursued by the Community—as they should be—in the general agreements on tariffs and trade under established procedures. The same is true of certain discriminatory measures taken by the United States Administration.
The United States has made an agreement with the Government of Japan to monitor the price of semiconductors exported not only to the United States but also to third markets including the Community. It has also made approaches to some other countries about limited exports of machine tools to the United States in a way which is contrary to the undertaking made at the GATT meeting last September not to introduce new trade restrictions outside the framework of GATT. It is true that the United States Administration has resisted many calls for protectionism in Washington and deserves some credit for that. The proposal once more that the Community should impose a tax on oils and fats to improve revenue under the common agricultural policy and narrow the price differential between dairy products and other oils and fats is plainly undesirable. The United States has threatened retaliation against Community trade if this proposal is adopted. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has made clear the British Government's opposition to that.
Although there are a number of disputes with the United States, there is as yet no trade war. That is important because British, like United States, industry has a great deal to lose in transatlantic trade. Last year, our exports to the United States were worth £10·3 billion, and we took in return imports of £8·5 billion, making a surplus in our favour of £1·8 billion. For the Community as a whole, two-way trade with the United States in 1985 was over $110 billion, with an advantage to the Community of $13 billion.
Before I turn to the details of the motion itself I should like to emphasise one important point. It is said that nobody wins from a trade war, but at the same time the United Kingdom and its Community partners have to defend to the full their legitimate trade interests. The House would be disturbed if I argued otherwise. The Government are therefore extremely concerned by the introduction in the United States Congress of the Textile and Apparel Bill. That is claimed to accord with GATT, but since the agreement in Punta del Este on a standstill on protectionist measures, to which the United States was a party, it clearly does not.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already told the United States Administration in plain terms that that Bill would, if enacted, have extremely damaging consequences for our textile and clothing industries. If the Bill is enacted, despite the stated opposition of the Administration, the United Kingdom would be bound to consider with its partners in the Community what


retaliatory action against United States exports would be appropriate in accordance with our international obligations.
I shall now deal with the detail of the motion we are discussing tonight. When Spain and Portugal joined the Community last year, that fact was reflected in changes to the common customs tariff of the Community. Under the terms of GATT, articles XXIV and XXVIII, in such circumstances the partners in a new customs union are required not to apply levels of protection which would be higher overall than those previously applied by the constituent parties; and if the level of protection is increased, appropriate compensation must be offered to the other GATT members affected by the increases, in the form of concessions elsewhere. The United States stood to lose markets in Spain for corn and sorghum as a result of the imposition in 1986 of the Community system of variable import levies on cereals which created a large preference for supplies of those and similar cereals from other Community countries. The United States estimated the value of that trade at some $400 million.
The Community recognised that the terms of GATT entitled the United States to some compensation in these circumstances. But the Community argued that United States exporters stood to gain—though the benefit could not of course be quantified — from the progressive reduction of tariffs and quantitative restrictions on imports of manufactured goods into Spain and Portugal during the transitional period.
The United States did not accept that interpretation of the GATT provisions. It announced in May 1986 that unless the Community was prepared to negotiate appropriate compensation with it, essentially at levels which were clearly excessive, it would impose restrictions on imports from the Community. Some suggestions were made as to the classes of goods which might be subject to retaliatory measures. In practice, and despite an interim agreement during our Presidency that a negotiated settlement should be sought by 31 December, it was impossible within that deadline to narrow the gap between the two sides. Accordingly, the United States announced on 30 December 1986 that, unless agreement was reached between the two sides by the end of January, the import duties applied by the United States to certain imports from the Community would be increased to 200 per cent. The products specified included bottled gin and cognac, several types of cheese and other agricultural products.

Mr. Colin Moynihan: Does my hon. Friend accept that the position adopted by the American Government in January regarding for example, the export of Beefeater gin to the American market was unacceptable and intellectually irrational in view of American support for Spanish and Portuguese accession to the Community? Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Americans try such protectionism again the Government will strongly oppose it?

Mr. Clark: Yes, it would certainly be extremely damaging. The American action was highly discriminatory as it was directly targeted on the United Kingdom. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry emphasised to the Commission the Government's extreme concern about this. Certainly that was reflected in the resolute and ultimately successful negotiating position taken by the Commission.
All the products concerned would have effectively been shut out of the American market by such high duties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East said, that would have had especially penal results on the United Kingdom's gin exports. British exports of bottled gin to the United States are alone worth $75 million a year. In return, the Community announced on 15 January that, if the proposed United States measures were implemented, it would retaliate with an additional levy on United States exports of corn gluten feed and rice.
The Commission's objective was to negotiate with the United States Administration an agreement that, consistent with the Community view on what was clue, satisfied at least in part United States domestic pressures. On 30 January the Council agreed to a package under which for a period of four years from 1987 to 1990 Spain will import not less than 2·3 million tonnes of feed grains at reduced levy rates, albeit reduced by the volume of imports of certain cereal substitutes into Spain. Most of these feed grains can be expected to be provided by the United States. Further, the Community agreed to reduced tariffs on certain agricultural and industrial products for the same period. These included certain fruit juices, avocados, roasted nuts and bourbon. Industrial items include various bromides, anti-knock preparations, epoxy resins and aluminium.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Not necessarily in that order.

Mr. Clark: I do not know if it is the absurdity of the list or some innate desire on the part of the House to lighten the atmosphere, but I believe that it is faintly ridiculous.

Mr. Robin Cook: What about the bromide?

Mr. Clark: The bromide is being administered, but it is the stimulant that perhaps is lacking.
The tariff reduction is autonomous; in other words it has not been made permanent in GATT. These arrangements will be reviewed in July 1990, and in the event of Council approval on 16 March the tariff changes will be implemented, three days after their publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities, on the basis of the proposal from the Commission, described in the explanatory memoranda noted in the motion.
In addition, the Community has agreed to re-bind in GATT the duties previously bound for the Community of 10, subject to the duty rates specified for Spain and Portugal during the transitional period. Both sides have agreed to raise the ceilings under indicative and non-restrictive quotas on certain classes of goods which were imposed last summer because of a similar but lesser, dispute about access to Portugal of United States oil seeds. Consequences of this settlement are positive in that the newly-enlarged Community has won formal and political recognition as a negotiating entity. There will be formal recognition by the United States ratification in the GATT of the trade consequences of enlargement and political recognition by the success with which a united Community has conducted a difficult negotiation.
In financial terms, the Commission estimates that the tariff concessions will result in a loss of about £35 million ECU of customs revenue. To the extent that United States corn displaces home-grown feed grains from the Spanish


market, there could need to be higher Community expenditure on export refunds or on purchases into intervention. Against that can be set additional income from levies on United States corn. These should amount to between 200 million to 300 million ECU per year.
These sums are small beside the possible damage that might have resulted from escalation.

Mr. Cook: The Minister has said that to the extent that American grain displaced European grain there could be an additional effect on the budget for intervention. Surely that is inevitable if there is an American sale to the Spanish market. As it is apparently possible for civil servants to put a figure on the income from American grain, surely it is possible for them to put a figure on the cost of buying into intervention the equivalent amount of European grain.

Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman has raised a point that occurred to me. I made inquiry, but I understand that it is not possible to give an answer to the question that would have any high level of precision attached to it. For that reason, the information was omitted.

Mr. Cook: I accept that it is not possible to achieve an arithmetically precise figure down to the last ECU. I assure the Minister, however, that I would accept a low level of precision and a broad order of magnitude. There must be a figure available similar to 230 million ECU that is accurate at least to the nearest 10 million.

Mr. Clark: That seems a reasonable request and I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman is informed. Perhaps a written question could be arranged so that the House is aware of the approximate answer. That can appear in the Official Report.
The essential achievement of the negotiations is that we have preserved United Kingdom export markets in the United States worth at least $75 million. There may be some increases in United States deliveries of products on which duties have been reduced, but I do not believe that such increased imports will put any part of the United Kingdom industry at risk, especially when we view the settlement in the light of the larger risks to our trade with which we were faced. More broadly, the successful settlement of a politically troublesome dispute within the terms of the general agreement should enhance the GATT's standing. This is important at the outset of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, of which the start of the substantive phase coincided with this deal.
This settlement marks a successful end to a serious dispute. The outcome is in many ways encouraging, not least because it arose in the framework of existing GATT rights and obligations on both sides, and was ultimately settled within that framework. It differed from the other separate disputes which I have mentioned previously. But these disputes relate to American actions which are to a greater or lesser degree contrary to the terms of the GATT. The lesson which both sides have, I hope, learnt is that restriction and retaliation in international trade can be profoundly damaging. The enlargement dispute has shown that the United States and the Community, however loud the rhetoric on both sides, can manage their trade relations with one another sensibly, and must continue to do so in

the series of rather different disputes that we still face. I hope that this message will not be lost on those in Washington who would prefer a different approach.

Mr. Robin Cook: As the Minister has said, the document marks the descent of the House from the high field of arts policy to trade in dried onions and plywood. It is no doubt an important matter for debate, but it appears to have rather more limited appeal than the arts. It may help to put the Minister's mind at rest if I assure him now that it is not the Opposition's intention to divide the House at the end of the debate. After all, we are considering the terms of settlement of what might be described as the cheese and cocktails war. As the party of peace, we are happy to accept a peace settlement on whatever terms.
For the record, it is important that we make our position clear on the negotiations and on the demand that sparked them off. It is our position that the United States action was wholly unjustified. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) reminded the House in an intervention in the Minister's speech, the United States warmly and strongly supported the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Common Market. Indeed, it is possible to find American congressmen who spoke more warmly and strongly in support of the accession of Spain and Portugal than some hon. Members. The Americans saw political and strategic advantages in the accession of Spain and Portugal. They also, although they might not have talked about it in quite the same terms, saw economic advantages from that accession — that is, indirect economic advantages from the faster growth of the economies of Spain and, to a lesser extent, Portugal, which were anticipated by their Government, and direct economic advantages from the reduced manufacturing tariffs that that accession necessarily produced.
The Americans could not expect such advantages to come with no price. A clear price that they might well have anticipated at the time — it was wrapped up in protracted negotiations—was that the Spaniards and the Portuguese would meet their future cereal needs from the large cereal surplus of the Community that they were about to join. Nobody suggested that the United Kingdom would be compensated for the additional budgetary burden that we now bear as a result of the increased cost of CAP caused by the accession of Spain and Portugal. It is a bit much for a third party to suggest that we should play a part in compensating them for the cost of such accession.
Not only was the United States action unjustified but it was wholly disproportionate. As the Minister said, we have narrowly avoided an escalatory spiral of retaliatory action. Over what? Over a modest amount of maize exports amounting to between £350 million and £400 million, which, I understand from a calculation that has been relayed to me, amounts to 20 minutes' worth of the United States federal budget.
We have come to the brink of a trade war over what is, both literally and in budgetary terms, chickenfeed. It is certainly the case that a major problem underlies the negotiations. That problem stems as much from the nature of the CAP as from anything else. The problem is that the major Western blocs of Europe and North America have substantial agricultural surpluses and are having


increasing difficulty in finding a market in the rest of the world in which to dispose of them. That is an ironic position to be in at a time when much of the Third world faces greater hunger. It would appear that a rational solution to the problem would be either to find non-market ways of meeting the needs of the Third world or, alternatively, reducing the CAP as an engine for further increasing the advanced world's surplus of agricultural products. Oddly, this settlement would appear, far from diminishing the CAP, to give it additional impetus by increasing the stocks to be held in intervention that ultimately will probably work their way through to the world markets.
The American action was not only unjustified and disproportionate but illogical. A major consequence of the United States proposals would be that the price of gin in New York would rise from £7 a bottle to £13 a bottle, with predictable effects on United Kingdom exports to America. It is difficult to see why it is either fair or logical for British distillers to be hit because Spain is now buying maize from French farmers. There is no logic or fairness to that proposition. It is based solely, one suspects, on the wish of the United States to maximise political pressure from their measures by ensuring that there is pressure on different Governments within the Economic Community.

Mr. Eric Deakins: A good tactic, too.

Mr. Cook: I am inclined to say that it would be one additional reason why Britain might have been better to have stayed out of the Common Market in the first place and thereby not put its head in the noose. It is ironic that political pressure should be applied in this way to a United Kingdom Administration who have done so much to further American interests. They have bought AWACS from the Americans and sold Westland to the Americans. It might be a hit much to expect the Americans, in return, to buy more of our weapons, but one might have expected them, in gratitude, to drink more of our gin.
We have to conclude that the American action was unjustified, disproportionate and illogical. Therefore it is disappointing that the Americans appear to have got so much of what they wanted out of the negotiations and that the counter-bluff—because that is what it now appears to be—of the Common Market was called. After the agreement, the president of the National Farmers Union was quoted as saying that the concessions had gone too far and that the agreement would
aggravate the EEC surplus problem, drive more grain into intervention and add to the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy. Producers cannot be expected to bear the costs of what is essentially a political decision.
The succint nature of that statement conveys two familiar themes of the farming lobby—first, that there ought to be more money to spend and, secondly, that it must not come out of their pockets.
It is regrettable that the final settlement should have been so advantageous to the United States and, other than avoiding retaliatory measures against the United Kingdom, that it should have contained nothing for the British. Nevertheless, one views the settlement with relief and we do not wish to stand in its way, for fear that it should trigger retaliatory measures that would have an impact on British distillers. Therefore we shall not oppose this motion. However, it would be appropriate to take this opportunity to put down markers for future EEC-US negotiations that may touch more centrally on United

Kingdom interests. I shall refer to two of these. The Minister has already referred to one of them, but the first one, to which he did not refer, is Airbus.
Airbus is a resoundingly successful project. As a passenger plane it has evoked more advance interest than any previous passenger aircraft model. Among the interests it has attracted is that of the United States Administration. At present, United States producers hold 80 per cent. of the passenger aircraft market, and they will resist any serious threat to their dominance of that market. To break into that market will therefore, be tough. There will undoubtedly be pressure—perhaps not directed this time at London Gin—to persuade the European countries to back off that threat to the United States' monopoly of the market. If we are to succeed in breaking that monopoly and if we are to obtain a fairer share of the market for European producers, we shall have to be tougher in the negotiations than we were in the recent confrontation.

Mr. Alan Clark: We are being tough.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentlemen assures me that the Government are being tough I welcome their toughness, but that toughness will have to go right through the negotiations. What has caused us concern about the recent negotiations is that although the EEC was tough, the agreement suggests that the Americans got very much what they wanted.
My second marker was referred to by the Minister—the attempt to increase textile protection by the United States Congress. I refer in particular to the Bill that was introduced by Congressman Derrick to impose quotas on textile exports from any part of the world, including the EEC—therefore including Britain. That causes acute concern to British producers, as witnessed by the presence in the Chamber of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), who takes a close interest in the subject.
Such a quota would not merely affect British exports of £300 million worth of textile goods to the United States; it would have a greater impact on the United Kingdom textile market. Other exporters to the United States would find that their exports were diverted to the United Kingdom domestic market, thus possibly posing an even greater loss of trade than the loss of exports to America. The Bill appears to pose a real threat.
The Jenkins Bill on similar lines a year ago went through Congress. It was halted by the President's veto. When considering the President's veto, Congress voted for the Bill by 60 per cent., only narrowly failing to achieve the necessary 66 per cent. vote to overturn the veto. It must be of concern that in the comparatively weaker state of the President's political authority, his veto is more vulnerabile to being overturned by Congress. Therefore, I strongly support what the Minister said tonight, reflecting the words of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the Government regard this as a serious matter. I assure the Minister that the Opposition regard it with equal seriousness and very much hope that the House will not be obliged to debate future terms of settlement which represent a climbdown in negotiations that parallel the climbdown we are now considering.
The background to the settlement and to Congressman Derrick's Bill is a chronic, gathering, structural deficit in


the American balance of trade. All the signs are that as that deficit becomes graver, the Americans will become a much more aggressive trading partner. Congressman Derrick's Bill is, I understand, only one of 400 protectionist Bills currently before Congress. The settlement in front of us reflects only one conflict in the past year, which has also seen conflict between the EEC and the United States over steel, pasta and citrus fruit, a dispute which has been rumbling for 16 years.
There will be other and heavier conflicts in the next year. The document and the motion we are considering reflect the solution to one conflict, but they do not remove the roots of conflict. The House may have to return to the underlying tension between the United States and Britain and the European countries in the trade war. When we return to the matter, the Minister may well find that we shall demand a tougher approach in negotiation and a more advantageous solution than we have before us tonight.

Mr. William Cash: As a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation I think I speak for other members of the Committee when I say that we understand the circumstances in which this matter has come to the House. Of course, I accept entirely the Minister's remarks on the subject.
However, I feel strongly that we have to improve the way in which we deal with European legislation. I do not intend going into all the matters arising out of the Single European Act but merely point out that at 10.42 pm on a Thursday, in a virtually empty House, we are discussing a matter of the gravest importance to British trade. Just to take one example, those who produce gin were in severe danger of losing the significant market to which the Minister referred. From the correspondence that I have had with the Minister and from the way in which he has conducted the negotiations I know—I do not say this lightly, because I have followed the negotiations with great interest—that there are few members of this Administration or of the House in whom one could have more confidence to defend British interests in these matters.
I took the comments of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) badly, because he damned with faint praise a good result in the negotiations. Here we are at this time of night discussing this important question. I make a strong protest at the way we treat these matters.
On the substantive question, the hon. Member for Livingston made a point about the EEC and how it functions. I am not anti-Europe, but I am distinctly sceptical about how the mechanisms work. Unless we get that in order there will be big trouble in this country over the next few years. The hon. Gentleman said that a whole range of other measures are still to come.
We are poised in a dangerous situation on the United States-Europe front for the next 18 months. We have to ask why we are in that position and what we are to do about it. In a nutshell, significant internal domestic and agricultural problems are facing the farmers and manufacturers in the United States. Whatever the reasons, those pressures have built up and will come through in

votes and pressures upon Congressmen in the United States. We cannot and must not kid ourselves that that is the case.
Therefore, if we, as a member of the EEC, find ourselves targeted in specific trade or agricultural sectors, we must consider how to respond within the mechanism of the EEC legitimately to defend ourselves. Firstly, there is the GATT round. I am confident that the Minister who has responsibility in that field, with his credentials, will conduct himself in a manner which will ensure that we defend ourselves effectively from the worst effects of the kind of trade war which is in prospect.
I have put my protest on the record. I hope that the Minister, and anybody else who has the opportunity, will refer this question to the Foreign Office and to the Leader of the House under the terms of reference of the Select Committee on European Legislation. Our terms of reference are very poor. We do not have the opportunity to consider things as we should. It is essential that we are brought early into the picture, by one mechanism or another, when matters of this kind arise.
That does not mean that we would exercise our powers in any irresponsible or unnecessarily restrictive way, but it would ensure that the power which is reflected in the person of the Minister, who is sitting on the Front Bench, is backed where necessary by the authority of a Committee of this House. Here we are representing the United Kingdom on a matter of great importance after the event and we have not had an opportunity to debate it. I cannot believe that is a sensible way to legislate or to defend the interests of our constituents.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I share with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and the Minister the feeling that trade wars are bad and that fortunately we have managed to avert one. There I part company with the Minister, whose speech was very good when it concentrated on trade, but sections of it—no doubt inserted at the insistence of the Foreign Office—betrayed the Foreign Office's style. The bombast about the Common Market and the way we had stuck together was rather nauseating. I cannot believe that the Minister, if he thinks about it, would have allowed that sort of passage in his speech, which was otherwise a very good factual account.
As both Front-Bench spokesmen have pointed out, the dangers of a trade war are still with us not merely in themselves but in the context of the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations which for the first time will cover agriculture. The present dispute is scarcely a good forecaster of success in those negotiations.
Both Front-Bench spokesmen took the view that when the dispute began the Common Market was in the right and the United States in the wrong, but in my opinion it was the other way round. In April last year the French Minister of Agriculture said:
It seems that a more complete study of the consequences of enlargement
—with the admission of Spain and Portugal—
shows that it will not harm the US but bring it not inconsiderable advantages, particularly in the industrial sector.
It may be said that that was just the French Minister speaking, but in November 1986, following a Community Foreign Affairs Council at which the subject had figured prominently, Agra Europe said:


At the basis of the disagreement is the US refusal to accept the Community thesis that losses in agricultural exports in Spain and Portugal will be balanced by easier access to the Iberian market for their industrial goods.
That may be all right in economic theory, but it is not acceptable under the rules of GATT. Indeed, it is illegal. If there was illegality, therefore, it was on the Community side and not on the United States side. Under article 24 of GATT, when a customs union is created—or expanded, as in this case—any country whose trade is adversely affected specifically by changes in customs duties, tariffs, quotas, and so on, is entitled to appropriate and quantifiable compensation, not vague compensation of the type implied by the suggestion that if industrial tariffs come down it may be possible to sell more motor cars, for example, in the new market. The Community was wrong in its initial approach to the issue and infortunately stuck to that approach even as far as November last year.
The United States reaction was not surprising, although it clearly went over the top. It was certainly ridiculous to claim, as the United States claimed at one stage last year, compensation equivalent to some 12 million tonnes of grain exports to Spain and Portugal when the trade involved had clearly been less than that. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the aims of the United States. They were set out by President Reagan in April last year. Agra Europe stated on 4 April:
The President announced that the US would retaliate if the EEC failed to withdraw its quota on Portuguese oilseed and products imports, to remove the Accession Treaty clause which states that Portugal must take 15·5 per cent. of its cereal imports from the rest of the EEC, and to compensate the US for the imposition of variable levies on Spanish maize and sorghum imports.
Of those three major objectives, two were unquestionably achieved in the final settlement, so when the Foreign Office part of the Minister's brief suggests that the Community had come out of the matter with honour and glory I prefer to take the view of Agra Europe which, although European, is fairly sceptical about claims that come out of Brussels and Berlaymont. On 30 January it stated:
Although both sides avoided claiming victory over the settlement of the long dispute, the US seems to have won the verdict on points.
I would go a little further, but there is no doubt that the United States obtained a fair amount of compensation which it would probably have achieved had negotiations under article 24.6 of GATT proceeded as they should have proceeded last year. Neither side comes out of the matter with much credit, and it is not a good prognosticator for what is likely to happen in the agriculture round of GATT or indeed in any future trade dispute between the two parties. It is a classic example of how not to conduct international trade negotiations and shows the difficulties that will arise whenever agriculture, in particular, comes up in the relationships between the Community and the rest of the world.
The financial impact of the documents that are before the House is extremely hazy. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to this. The Minister did not deal with it in his speech, though he promised to give some information in reply to a written question. My hon. Friend was right to point out that there will he increased cost to the EEC as a result of the agreement. It would have been helpful, in asking us to approve the agreement—which is welcome in all parts of the House,

and I share that welcome—if the Minister had given an idea of the financial consequences of what we are being asked to do.
I agree with those who say that the United States is moving in a protectionist direction. But let us beware of presenting the EEC in a white sheet. We do not want to be likened to a pot calling the kettle black. After all, the EEC has always been a protectionist bloc, particularly in its agricultural trade with the outside world.
This GATT round—we are beginning to see some progress—will be crucial. I fear, however, that if it does not succeed, we shall see more trade wars, and I agree with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that eventually it will become a war in which, at least metaphorically, blood will be spilled.
I understand that, like me, the Minister is a free trader. Subsidies to exports are just as damaging to international trade as are barriers to imports. A basic principle of the CAP is that exports of agricultural products should be subsidised. The Minister did not comment on that. I should like to know his views on the subject and the views of the Department of Trade. Once one bloc starts playing with export subsidies, other blocs are encouraged to follow suit. Indeed, in recent years the United States has passed legislation to enable that country's Departments of Commerce and Agriculture effectively to subsidise United States agricultural exports to the rest of the world because they have been losing out to subsidised agricultural exports from the EEC.
Although there may have been economic advantages to accession for Spain and Portugal—there have certainly been political advantages—I am not sure that the same can be claimed for Britain, which I believe has suffered disastrously economically since we joined the EEC. Considering our trading balance with the original Six and then the Nine, until the admission of Spain and Portugal, it is clear that we have not done well. It is to be hoped that matters will prove more encouraging for Spain arid Portugal than has been the case for this country.

Sir John Farr: I, too, welcome the agreement and, like other hon. Members, I fear that another US-EEC trade war is looming on the horizon. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) spoke of the possibility of a measure coming before the United States legislature shortly on a matter to which I shall come.
Trade wars and the threat of them cost jobs in the long run. There are no winners. For that reason, I particularly welcome the agreement that has been reached and hope that we shall do our utmost through the Community to avert any trade war with the United States. With no winners, both sides lose jobs, many of which may be lost for ever.
I wish to refer in particular to the textile and clothing restraint measure which, as the hon. Member for Livingston said, was presented to Congress last month. That United States Bill presented in the Senate by Senators Thurmond and Hollings and in the House of Representatives by Congressman Butler Derrick, proposes the introduction of global quotas for all textile arid clothing imports including those from EEC countries and, as a result, will include those from the United Kingdom. Based on 1986 import levels increased by 1 per cent. per annum, United States tariffs would be reduced by a total of 10 per cent. spread over five years—a ludicrously


small amount. To give the House an idea how small that is, the lowest present United States tariff on wool cloth is 33 per cent. so that would apparently be reduced to 29·7 per cent. after five years.
The United States Bill would prohibit any other United States tariff reductions under the new round of GATT multilateral trade negotiations now taking place. As the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) mentioned, there is a possibility if the Bill passes in both Houses in the United States of it being vetoed by the President. That happened with the Jenkins Bill to restrict textile and clothing imports in December 1985. It was a matter of touch and go whether that was defeated. Of course, the President's veto can be overturned by a two thirds majority in each House—and that only narrowly failed with the Jenkins Bill in August 1986.
Should the United States Bill be enacted, it would clearly be a very serious matter for British exporters to the United States. As has already been mentioned, our trade with the United States in clothing exports was over £300 million in 1986. The result of the Bill, a measure to limit our access to the United States, which has already been presented to Congress and the Senate would be that Britain and other countries would have to fight for a share of very limited global access to the United States. All the other suppliers including the low cost suppliers from the far east would join in. If the quota operated via a licensing system, based on individual importers' previous level of imports, it would also give extra bargaining power to United States importers when dealing with overseas suppliers.
This is a short debate, and as hon. Members have already stressed tonight, this is a matter of extreme consequence and great importance and it should not be channelled into a slot late at night in a debate lasting for an hour and a half gives us the opportunity to make the United States Administration and Congress aware that the enactment of such a Bill would result in large scale trade conflict spreading beyond textiles and clothing with counter measures hitting many United States industrial and agricultural exports.
When my hon. Friend replies, I hope that he will give the House an undertaking that he is, if necessary, ready to back up the warnings that have already been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in Washington on 4 March and support those by being prepared to introduce immediately through the European Commission a list of counter measures if the American Bill becomes law.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in Washington a few days ago that any such Bill introduced in the United States would meet with considerable opposition and counter measures. I would have thought after the report that appeared in the Financial Times of 5 March that possibly my hon. Friend when he replies might be able to give us some idea of the type of counter measures that we have in mind ready to be introduced should that be necessary. Many other countries have protested about the introduction of the Bill. There have been objections worldwide. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure the House that, if the Bill proceeds, we will be ready, with the Community, to do our best to adopt these counter-measures.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I should like to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and others and welcome the EC-US agreement. There have been three principal strands to this debate, to which I have listened with interest. First, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) made the important point that the way in which we deal with these matters leaves a great deal to be desired. I hope that his impassioned and earnest plea will be considered by the Leader of the House and the other authorities with a view to improving the present position.
The second important strand concerns the way in which the Community as a whole is responding, and shaping up, to the difficult international trade position that is developing. The third strand concerns the way in which the Americans have been acting during the dispute which has culminated in the EC-US agreement. I agree with the argument of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) when he said that the American conduct had been unjustified and its response disproportionate in scale. That is true in view of the value of United States exports at stake. The hon. Gentleman said that it was 20 minutes' worth of United States expenditure. We are therefore talking only about approximately $400 million. My information is that the United States budget is about $350 billion, so I concur with the hon. Gentleman's argument.
More important still is the worrying and high-handed attitude of the United States. It does not augur well for future EC-US trade negotiations. A series of future negotiations about equally important matters may be difficult to handle.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins). I concede that he may be technically right in his interpretation of article 24—he said that the benefits were vague and difficult to substantiate—but I believe that some of the benefits to the United States are substantial. They are principally political and military, but there are also industrial benefits and benefits in terms of reduced tariff access for soya and maize gluten. The hon. Gentleman considers those to be insignificant benefits—that is a matter of judgment—but I believe that, on balance, the Americans did not get all that had a deal. I do not think that the $400 million about which they were arguing was worth the aggravation and hassle caused to the relationship between the trading blocks of the European Community and of the United States.
The position will get worse. All the evidence shows that, in view of the Democratic influx in the last United States autumn mid-term elections and the fact that President Reagan is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be more of a lame duck President than anything else who cannot necessarily depend on a majority in the Senate, there are obviously difficulties on the horizon. If it does nothing else, this debate should strengthen the Government's resolve firmly to face those questions if they arise.
I shall now turn to the direct implications for cereals. On checking the statistics, it is clear that the immediate implication of the agreement is that the amount of grain sold by the United Kingdom to Spain will be substantially reduced this year compared with what we sold last year. The International Wheat Council's statistics show that in the first 10 months of 1986, the United Kingdom sold 612,000 tonnes of barley and 634,000 tonnes of feed wheat


to Spain. That was a considerable increase on a near zero level of sales in 1985. That may be due to the fairly unique geographical and climatic conditions during 1986. We are right to recognise that those sales were of substantial assistance in dealing with some of the surpluses in Britain.
The hon. Member for Livingston quoted the president of the English National Farmers Union as saying that it must be recognised that agreements of this sort will aggravate the problem of cereal surplus, will drive more grain into intervention and add to the cost of the common agricultural policy. The view of the National Farmers Union is that the concessions have gone too far.
I certainly hold no brief for farmers such as the barley barons of East Anglia, but I represent a constituency where the cereal farms are largely in marginal areas of Scotland, and I can tell the Government that such producers cannot and should not be expected to bear the cost of what is essentially a political agreement. The Government should bear that fully in mind, although I understand that it is not really directly in the jurisdiction of the Minister's Department and overlaps into the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I hope that the Government will look again at the longterm agricultural implications of agreements like this as they apply to the ninth GATT round in Uruguay. The hon. Member for Walthamstow was right to refer to that, because if we start to allow the Americans to make the running by insisting that things such as direct export subsidies should be used as the only criterion, we may start to forget that the United States loan rate scheme finances American agriculture to the extent of $25 billion.
I hope that the Government will take the advice of the NFU and found heavily on the OECD analysis that is shortly to be produced. Hopefully, that will provide a more objective and rational basis for evaluating the concessions and changes that will need to be made in the course of the multilateral trade negotiations that are currently under way.
Exchange rates are also important both to agriculture in general and to farmers in my constituency in particular. I hope that the Minister will use his influence with the Government to try to get more exchange rate stability because nothing is more destabilising to the international agricultural market than the fluctuations that we have seen in exchange rates in the recent past. The NFU takes the view that we have to bear in mind that any proposals to solve the problem of cereal surpluses must be accompanied by a slightly tighter control on the import of substitutes.
Textiles are an important part of EC and US trade negotiations. The hon. Member for Livingston has already advanced eloquent arguments about this. The new Butler Derrick Bill is a substantial threat and, as the hon. Member for Harborough has told the House, global quotas could have dire and far-reaching consequences. I make the unashamedly constituency point that they would have a disastrous effect on the high-quality, high-volume hosiery industry, and especially on the cashmere hosiery industry in my constituency. The compensation that is being envisaged in the course of the Bill being considered in America would not go any way towards meeting the difficulties that the industry would face if the measure is allowed to hit the American statute book.
I reiterate what the hon. Member for Harborough said—that the Government should take the opportunity this evening of making a clear statement that European Community retaliation would result. I give the

Government credit for the position that they have taken so far. They have been fairly robust, but it would help if the Minister felt able to make a clear statement that retaliation would result, and would be directed to areas where it would hurt. That means using retaliation under article 19 of the measure in the US farm sector.
I am told by experts who know far more about the intricacies of some of this potential American legislation that the Butler Derrick Bill is supposed to be GATT-proof. I subscribe to the view that is reported to be taken by Mr. Willy De Clerq,the EC trade commissioner, in the Financial Times today. About the Bill, he said:
it would fundamentally change the way in which the world trade in textiles has been conducted for the past 25 years.
The article goes on to say, that it would also
call into question the recent extension of the Multifibre Arrangement between developed and developing countries.
After all the work, about which the Minister will know because he put a great deal of work and effort into getting the agreement that we have, the legislation could potentially blow a hole in that agreement and render everybody's work over the past 12 months nugatory.
The issue of distortion of trade by substantial diversion from the US has been properly raised by the hon. Member for Livingston, and I support his argument. The view of the experts whom I have consulted is that there is as much as a 50–50 chance of the legislation being enacted in America. If that happened, the sort of high-quality, high-volume business in my constituency, which considers access to the US markets to be vital, will find it difficult to operate. It is a fashion-based industry, and fashion is seasonal. If quotas are introduced, and the quotas are taken up in the first quarter of the trading year, it is impossible to export the products of a fashion-based industry without disastrous consequences. The compensation, such as it is, being offered at the moment is of no real value unless exporters to the US can stay in the market for five years, because it takes five years for the full extent of the compensation to mature.
The United States market available to the hosiery industry in my constituency has taken years of hard work to develop, and the Bill could sweep it all away. The competition from other countries would make price bargaining much tougher, as the hon. Member for Harborough said. It would put an awful lot more power into the hands of American negotiators when it came to discussing prices of goods, if they knew that they had behind them the strength of a limited access quota. The ability of the industry to develop alternative markets would be next to impossible.
I have a clear constituency interest. I know that the Minister pays close attention to these matters, and I give him credit for having done so over the detailed negotiations for the MFA. I know, too, that we have the 1988 cashmere bilateral still to negotiate with China, which is another continuing cause of uncertainty in my constituency.
I hope that the Minister will accept these arguments in the constructive way that they are intended. The House should strengthen his arm so that he can go back and argue strongly within the EC, and stiffen its resolve to negotiate toughly with the United States, not just on the agreement that we are debating tonight, but on the wider issues and other subjects we shall have to deal with in future.

Mr. Alan Clark: This debate has been extremely useful and encouraging for me. It has not been couched on party political lines. I entirely take the point made most forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that it is desirable that there should be a closer liaison between the Select Committee, the House and my Department so that such matters as this are debated before the House is presented with something on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
The point that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) made that we find ourselves debating this so late at night demonstrates the importance that the Government and my Department attach to the subject is a misplaced one. We are here at 11.30 pm because those who manage our business in such matters failed to appreciate the obsessive taste for self-congratulatory speeches on the arts which affects so many of our colleagues, and which turned what was meant to be a very short debate on the arts into a full-scale debate from 3.30 to 10.00 pm.
None the less, this is a highly important subject. The general feeling of hon. Members is that we are not out of the wood. There was general agreement that we must be vigilant and ready to resist any development that may return us to the extremely dangerous situation from which we have escaped.
There was a clear disagreement between the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) as to who was to blame for this dispute. I find both of their arguments entirely convincing. The hon. Member for Livingston made an interesting point, from which I would not dissent, that much of the difficulty is endemic to the economies that still abuse their treatment of agriculture and surpluses. Until that is sorted, the problem will recur in one form or another. The Government are foremost in the Community in attempting to get that dealt with. The OECD conference of last April demonstrated the direction in which OECD countries had to move. Some progress has been made and there is wider realisation that that is the key to solving many of the economic problems that are so prevalent at the present time.
The hon. Member for Livingston was right to raise the question of the agricultural budget. I shall attempt to give him an answer now, but I must warn him that it rests on a number of interlinked assumptions, one of which, if it is subsequently found to be invalid, may vitiate the conclusion. If we assume that over the four years of the agreement, Community grains take 15 per cent. of the Portugese market and all Spanish grain import needs, world grain prices do not change, EEC support prices do not change and EEC production levels do not change, intervention and storage costs will be offset by gains levy income. I am told that as good a guess as any is that the net additional cost of the agreement will be £100 million for each of the four years. That is subject to a wide margin of error of about 50 per cent. each way and represents a small factor of the CAP budget of £26 billion.
The hon. Member for Livingston mentioned the Airbus—

Mr. Barry Sheerman: What about the money?

Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman has only just come in and did not hear what his hon. Friend said, or the substance of his argument, which did not relate to that in the slightest. If the hon. Gentleman wants to continue with his constituency correspondence he might be better advised to do it elsewhere. I have responded vigorously to questions on the Aibrus during questions to the Department of Trade and Industry. I fully appreciate that the Boeing apprehensions are undoubtedly leading the Americans into vigorous lobbying for protectionist measures but I am confident that they will be strongly resisted. I attach a great deal of importance to that, as I believe does the House, given the exchanges when these matters were ventilated at Question Time.
Virtually all hon. Members who have spoken mentioned the Textile and Apparel Bill. We are most concerned about the consequences of that. The Bill is not consistent with the GATT. It would represent another breach of the United States standstill commitment. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to the Financial Times article which referred to Commissioner De Clercq and I agree that the Bill could not be enacted by the United States Administration while the United States remained within its MFA commitment. There is no MFA justification for those restrictions being provided and it is the reverse of the liberalisation provisions envisaged ultimately in the MFA protocol.
The House has registered its concern at the same time as its relief. There is a general measure of relief that a retaliatory cycle has been avoided, but at the same time there is the clear knowledge that many of the essential elements that are causing discordances in the trade field remain and the dangers of their raising their heads again are plain.
However, the House can at least draw some comfort from the fact that a combination of vigilance, patience, diplomatic skill and resolution prevented the dispute from proceeding to the extremely dangerous denouement that at one time threatened. If we continue to apply those qualities on future occasions and the House continues to show the single minded purpose which it has done this evening we shall fare well in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the unnumbered explanatory memorandum, dated 31st January 1987, submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry, describing a draft Decision concerning the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America for the conclusion of negotiations under General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Article XXIV.6, and European Community Document No. 5062/87 and the Department's unnumbered explanatory memorandum dated 23rd February 1987, on the implementation of the Agreement; and welcomes the Agreement as the means of averting an exchange of retaliatory and counter-retaliatory trade measures between the United States and the Community which would have very serious consequences for EC-US trade, for the multilateral trading systems and for progress in the new round of multilateral trade negotiations now beginning in GATT.

Industrial Training

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
The order requires parliamentary approval because one part of it—that covering site employees in the mechanical and electrical engineering construction industry sector—involves a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of emoluments.
Hon. Members will need no reminding of the importance of the engineering industry, which is the largest manufacturing sector in terms of employment. Engineering output has risen during the past five years by nearly 10 per cent. The increase is most marked in the electrical and instrument engineering sector. Mechanical engineering has continued its growth. Protecting the skill base of the industry is clearly vital. That is why it is essential that this order should be approved so that money is available to the Engineering Industry Training Board to enable it to encourage firms to train in the industry.
I am surprised that the Opposition have put down an amendment to the motion, and, indeed, are asking the Government to give a lead and support to the board. We do give that support, as I shall make clear.
While recognising that it is primarily the responsibility of employers and the board to identify and meet the industry's training needs, the Government also make considerable specific provision for training in the vital engineering sector. In 1986–87 some 25,000 young people were in engineering skills training under the youth training scheme. We expect the new job training scheme to make a major contribution in engineering training across a range of skill levels.
We also very much welcome the board's efforts to meet engineering skill needs. The board is putting an increased emphasis on high technology needs by providing an advanced technology training team. It also offers grants to help to alleviate high technology skill shortages—for instance, by encouraging companies to carry out more training for the conversion of suitable people to work in high technology areas. Accelerated management training and development for promising young engineers is offered through the board's fellowship schemes.
Those measures clearly demonstrate the board's commitment to stimulating employers to invest in training, and the order before us will enable that work to continue.
The board of course recognises that there is room for improvement; that employers must be encouraged to improve the volume of training if the engineering sector is to grow and not be hampered by skill shortages. To this end, the board issued, at the end of last year, an information paper setting out its view that the levy and exemption system now in operation was not bringing about the necessary quantity of training. The paper offered three options to improve the situation: more rigorous exemption rules, a levy-grant system, or a system where the board is funded entirely through a nonreturnable levy of up to 0·2 per cent. of payroll.
I understand that the board agreed earlier today that, before making its final decision, it should develop criteria

for a revised levy exemption scheme to deliver an adequate quantity as well as quality of training. The board will meet again in June to consider these criteria.
Technological advance has clearly had a significant impact on the employment patterns of engineers. Engineers are now widely employed in sectors not traditionally associated with the engineering industry. The board is beginning to address this problem by instigating a survey to identify where engineering skills are used and the flows of engineers in and out of the various sectors. This survey will go a long way towards identifying engineering skill needs across the whole of industry and services. Again it has our support—indeed, we are contributing to its cost.
The levy proposals before us now are in the same format as those approved by both Houses last year and are expected to raise just over £19 million. The levy will apply to those firms which are in the industry between the date the order comes into force and 31 August 1987. The levy is made up of two main parts. The first part applies to mainstream engineering, and the second to the mechanical and electrical engineering construction industry.
For mainstream engineering establishments, the board has agreed unanimously to propose increases in the nonexemptable portion of the levy and the following arrangements will apply. Small firms with 40 or fewer employees will be excluded from paying levy. This exclusion level remains unchanged from last year. All other establishments will have to pay a levy of 1 per cent. of emoluments unless their training is judged satisfactory against criteria set by the board. Establishments with fewer than 1,000 employees, who train satisfactorily, will be exempt from all but 0·08 per cent. of the levy. This nonexemptable portion is increased from 0·06 per cent. Similarly, larger establishments which train satisfactorily will be exempt from all but 0·08 per cent. of the levy in respect of the first 1,000 employees and 0·072 per cent. in respect of the remainder. This represents respective increases in the non-exemptable levy from the rates of 0·06 per cent. and 0·054 per cent. that were set last year.
For establishments in the mechanical and electrical engineering construction industry sector, the levy arrangements proposed remain the same as those approved by both Houses last year. The levy is in several parts. For off-site employees, no levy is payable by establishments of up to 30 employees. For establishments of more than 30 employees, 1 per cent. of total emoluments is payable, of which 0·15 per cent. will be non-exemptable. For site employees, no levy will be paid on the first £50,000 of emoluments. On emoluments over £50,000, a non-exemptable levy of 1·12 per cent. will be payable. That is the reason for the affirmative resolution that is before the House tonight.
The employer and employee members of the mechanical and electrical engineering construction industry sector committee agreed to the levy unanimously and the proposals were subsequently approved by the board without dissent. Letters of support have been received from the two major employer organisations in the sector. There is thus consensus in the industry for the proposals as required by the Industrial Training Act 1982.
I therefore recommend the order to the House. The proposals have been unanimously agreed by employer representatives on the board. They are necessary to help meet the industry's future training needs.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Having listened to the Minister, one would be forgiven for thinking that all was well with the engineering industry and with training for it. The hon. Gentleman said that he was surprised that the Opposition had tabled an amendment, but the industry has shrunk alarmingly. For example, it provided 3 million jobs in 1979 against 2 million now. There has been a disastrous decline in training, which has contracted to a greater extent than employment in the industry. We are in a perilous position because the industry is not training the skilled employees that it or the country needs. If we do not get engineering training right, what hope do we have as a major manufacturing nation? I was surprised by the complacency that the Minister showed this evening. In years to come historians and others will read his speeches, including the one that he delivered this evening, and they will contrast the decline in engineering and the manufacturing base generally with the Minister's performance. The hon. Gentleman sleepwalked his way through a speech that would cause some to think that everything was well.
I shall spend a few minutes—I know that the hour is late—highlighting the ruinous position in which industrial training finds itself. There are some key issues to which we must address ourselves. The effective training of engineers, both in traditional skills and in the new areas of technology, is at such a low level that the role of training should be seen as a key engine of economic development. If we are ever to put right manufacturing industry and get the economy moving again after nearly eight years in the doldrums, we shall have to invest in the three engines of growth, which are capital investment, research and development and education and training.
A report was issued the week before last by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research. The top 10 British industries are 40 per cent. less productive than their American competition. Our bottom eight industries are 75 per cent. less productive than their American counterparts. This spells ruin for Britain if we are to meet the two challenges of markets and technology. If we do not invest in training, the report to which I have referred states that the shortest way of trying to bridge the gap between our performance and that of the United States and elsewhere will be by investment in human capital. In my part of Britain, that means investment in men and women and proper education and training.
The Government, with their appalling record of mass unemployment, have been forced to skew their training policy at the short term and the superficial. There are now 1 million on schemes that are largely for the unemployed—as many as those who were unemployed in 1979 when the Tories said that Britain was not working. If we are to be truly productive and compete in an increasingly competitive world market, we must train our work force.
The Government have singularly neglected the training of those who are in work. The most recent labour force survey tells us that only 7 per cent. of men and women who are in work are receiving any training. That compares so badly with our international competitors that it is embarrassing to dredge up the statistics.
Rather than there being a consensus on how everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, the Minister is covering up a ruinous situation in engineering. Members of the engineering industry training board know that the

situation is totally desperate. They are waiting for a Labour Government to put training right, or for the present Government, even at this late stage, to realise the folly of relying on the workings of the free market to determine how many people are trained.
The engineering industry training board is the classic example of how the Government's market philosophy does not work in serving the national interest. The EITB levy exemption system is based on the principle that if we leave it to employers to train for their needs, the total sum will add up to the national interest in engineering training needs. Since 1982, when the engineering industry training board was basically neutered and its ability to raise the levy and ensure that training was done was weakened, we have seen that, compared with a 60 per cent. exemption, 94 per cent. of the engineering industry has been exempted from the levy. What is more, we have the equally grave matter that the Minister glossed over. Fifty per cent. of people who are qualified to work in engineering work not in the engineering sector but in other sectors. The EITB has no responsibility or power to train in such sectors. Indeed, most sectors have no ITBs because they were abolished in 1982.
We have two facts. First, only 50 per cent. of engineering employees are covered. Secondly, firms with fewer than 40 employees—a sizeable 250,000 people—are not covered by the EITB. The system is not training for most of the industry, even before we start to look at the levy exemption. Who blames an individual employer for not training if half the people working in engineering are not covered by the system, anyway? Of course, that makes individual employers in the engineering industry loath to do more than to train for their most conservative needs. That leads to ruin for the planning of training and the equipping of the work force. We need to concentrate our energies on the skills of our existing work force. The EITB could be the organ that pumps the blood around the body of engineering training.
I have three questions for the Minister. I do not suppose that he will answer any of them fully. First, why have we seen the fate of the EITB under the Government? Why has it been brought so low? Why is morale in the EITB so low? How is the EITB, even in its neutered role—it has some excellent men and women working for it—to try to meet the central issues of engineering training? The people in the EITB care about training. They know the scandalous situation that we are in but are helpless to do much about it. What are the Government doing about training in engineering? I do not have to look far for evidence about the parlous state of training. The Minister has access to all the evidence that is being given to the Select Committee on Employment by the EITB and by other expert witnesses who say that engineering training is in a parlous state.
I listened only the day before yesterday to a most interesting lunch time speech. A distinguished gentleman referred to the fact that Governments have a major responsibility to provide education. He said:
Unemployment is an intractable problem, with overall 11 per cent. of our labour force sitting on the sidelines. Among youth the figure is nearer 20 per cent…Since 1980, industrial output has grown more than twice as fast in the United States and more than three times as fast in Japan. The Pacific Basin has been attracting investment that we need in Europe…To hold our own against the US and the Far East, our two world class competitors, we need action that creates and sustains the right environment for enterprise to flourish. That is primarily the role of government…A major responsibility of governments is education …


Certainly companies have their part to play—a larger part than at present, judging by the fact that, for example, corporate America spends proportionately three times more than corporate Britain. But we look primarily to government to provide Europe's trained base of human resources. I won't join the debate you are conducting in the UK, except to note that your Manpower Services Commission reports a chronically short supply of mechanical designers, engineers (where demand for qualified people doubles every five years) programmers and multi-skilled craftsmen.
That was the president of IBM in Europe, a Swiss national, who knows about industry in Europe, speaking about the state of British productivity and about high technology. What he said at that American chamber of commerce lunch only two days ago would make very good reading for the Minister, after his complacent remarks this evening.
There are chronic skill shortages throughout the country in an industry that is at the centre of our hopes for economic recovery. Unless the Government realise that dramatic action must be taken to provide both traditional and high-tech skills, we shall he in terrible trouble. The EITB has inadequate leverage over the whole system. It does not have the power to do the job. The Minister could give it that power. There could at least be a levy grant, thereby providing more resources with which to do the job. He could also devise a system of training that ensured that employers trained their employees so that firm after firm does not live by poaching off the few firms that provide training.
At a recent conference the managing director of a company that teaches computer skills and sells distance learning packs—it is a reputable and prestigious company that is doing a worth-while job—said that his company offers those packs to the engineering industry and that one of the major engineering employers—a household name—was told that this pack would lead to its employees passing the computer skills course and obtaining a City and Guilds certificate. The company held up its hands in horror and said, "We do not want them to get a certificate. It will make them mobile and someone will poach them." I do not blame the company, but it is terrible that companies should be frightened to give the men and women in the engineering industry certificates because it might make them poachable.
That is the heart of the problem in the engineering and other industries today. No company will train people if it thinks that it will not hold on to its trained employees. Firms cannot be persuaded to take training seriously because they regard money spent on training as a cost rather than an investment. It is a cost if the individual, when trained, is recruited at a higher wage by a competitor who puts nothing into the training pool. We need a Government who take training so seriously as to require every firm to train in the national interest. If not we shall end up an impoverished third order power.
The Minister also glossed over the engineering industry training board consultation paper which has been out for over two months with no response from him, his Ministry or any other Minister.

Mr. Trippier: What makes the hon. Gentleman think that the Government will be included in the consultation exercise? I have already said that we welcome it. The board is supposed to bring the result to Ministers. That is the way these matters are normally dealt with.

Mr. Sheerman: If a major centre of industrial training makes a plea that the system under which engineering

industry training is carried out is so hopeless that something dramatic must be done, and says that the industry is faced with three options, one would think that the Minister responsible for training would get involved in the consultation and say, "You ar right. It is disgraceful. We have to do something about it. This is what the Government think." Presumably the Government have no opinion.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is ludicrous. He is suggesting that Ministers in the Department of Employment should respond to the consultation document put out by the board prior to the board receiving the clear message from the industry and trade unions, which we want to hear. Is he suggesting that in the unlikely event of a Labour Government ever being returned to office, they would override the decisions made by industry and the trade unions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I have allowed the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) to discuss training in general, but I remind the House that we are discussing a particular point of order which deals with the levy, the way it is assessed and its purpose. It is not a general debate on training.

Mr. Sheerman: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have not at any point in my speech wavered from the levy. The three options that I was discussing before the Minister intervened were the three options put out about the levy only two months ago. The first was a move to a levy grant system; the second was a significantly increased non-returnable levy system; the third was a much stiffer levy exemption system. The decision of a meeting today on the levy, I understand, was in the interim to consider the third alternative which I would have thought was the weakest of the three.
It also set out in the evidence to the Select Committee on Employment all the worries about the levy system and the way it operated and its inadequacy. Tonight we are debating the levy. If the levy is inadequate, the amendment tabled in the names of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends is absolutely germane to the debate tonight. What we are saying—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the amendment was not selected because it is out of order on an order of this kind.

Mr. Sheerman: We were quite well aware of that, but I understand that it is our right and privilege to table the amendment to give some indication of our feelings on this matter. We believe that the Government should be moving immediately to correct the scandal that the EITB document has been out for two months and the Government have not responded in any positive way.
The Minister is looking pained and injured. The Government do not care about training, having allowed jobs in the manufacturing engineering industries to collapse from 3 million to 2 million. Here are a Minister and a Government, knowing how bad the situation is, letting market forces rule. Here is a Minister who will not admit what everyone in the industry and the EITB knows and what his friends in the Engineering Employers Federation must be telling him in private—that this is a very grave situation now.
Heaven knows what it will be like next year, or two or three years from now. This is too serious a matter for the


Minister to smirk and look pained about. He is responsible yet he seems not to be taking this situation seriously. He is not willing to take on board the views of the Labour party that we need a national training fund that everyone will pay into and that will put engineering and industrial training in this country on the right footing and re-equip and reskill our country to face the future with confidence.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The last debate on this subject, in April last year, was unique in that it was commenced by the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household. Perhaps it is appropriate, in view of the events at Truro today, to pay tribute to the contribution made in that debate by the late Member for Truro, Mr. Penhaligon, who, like myself, was a chartered engineer. In that debate he spoke of the need for us to be proud of engineers and not to regard engineering as an alternative occupation. He had served an apprenticeship in engineering, as I have. We have every reason to be proud of engineering as a career in itself and as a preparation for a career in this House or elsewhere.
I listened to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). It is amazing that people should come into this House and ask for more training when it is so evident that they need training themselves. I was surprised that we have heard no more talk tonight about a 2 per cent. levy on sales. As the labour payroll in engineering is about a third of the total cost, that would be equivalent to a 6 per cent. levy on the payroll. Yet there is no suggestion by the Opposition that we should be talking about a 6 per cent. levy on payroll because plainly that would be a prohibitive burden.

Mr. Sheerman: If the hon. Gentleman waits until next Thursday, he will see the launch of our major statement on training and he will get the answers. Let the hon. Gentleman hold his patience until Thursday.

Mr. Thurnham: If it is anything like the launch of the job package yesterday, some member of the Opposition will put his foot in it and take the headlines from something else which would be far more helpful to Members on this side of the House.
The engineering industry training board submitted a memorandum for the Select Committee a week or two ago. The growth in jobs for professional engineers is shown in the figures prepared by the board for the Committee. The growth in jobs for professional engineers has been quite outstanding. Over the last eight years the total number of professional engineers in the country has grown from 60,000 to 90,000, although employment in the industry has declined from 3 million to 2 million. The loss of jobs has been more in the unskilled sector and the board needs to concentrate on the provision of training for professional engineers.
In the north-west, the number of professional engineering jobs has also grown, from 6,300 to about 7,900 last year, but the increase has been nothing like large enough. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is as interested as I am in the north-west. Perhaps he will say whether he thinks that more measures should be taken to increase the number of training places, as I believe that there should be at least another 3,000 professional engineers employed in the region.
Other interesting figures provided by the training board show that the number of women taking careers as professional engineers has increased fourfold in the country, from 1,000 to 4,000 last year. In the north-west, too, there has been a substantial increase, but not on the same scale. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the need for more training places for women in the north-west so that we can have twice as many women employed as professional engineers in the region, not only to provide more employment but because the future prospects and prosperity of the industry depend on having sufficient professional engineers, scientists and technologists who are in such short supply.
Sixty per cent. of the firms surveyed by the training board said that they experienced difficulties in recruiting specialist graduates in areas such as electronics. Does my hon. Friend think that the training board should concentrate more of its resources and time on the provision of those specialist skills rather than trying to provide the whole range of skills? The training board told the Select Committee that it would be making a decision this month on the method of its funding and listed three possible options, including higher levels of mandatory funding. I suggest that if the board were a little more selective there would be no need for higher mandatory funding.
A press release put out the other day by the Engineering Council drew attention to the need for more engineering places in universities and polytechnics. It ended by saying that longer-term measures should include the provision of greater facilities in schools to encourage people to take up careers in education and drawing attention to the need for more maths and physics teachers and the need to broaden the school curriculum so as to encourage both boys and girls to consider careers in engineering. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider whether more can be done in that respect.
Finally, I draw attention once again to the statement by the Engineering Employers Federation, which was echoed in evidence given to the Select Committee on Employment today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) when he said that the firm of which he is chairman would be pleased to help with the training of more engineers in schools. The federation's annual review, which has just been published, says that it would like the Department of Education and Science to give a clear lead to local education authorities and teachers on ways in which they should be seeking and responding to industry's offer of help. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will draw this to the attention of his colleagues so that the Government can respond more fully to that offer of help from industry.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It is fair to say that this debate takes place against a background of genuine concern about the skill shortages in British industry generally and in engineering in particular. There is no doubt that the method of training had to change because technology was changing, and I appreciate the remarks of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurham) about the former hon. Member for Truro, the late David Penhaligon. In the short and rather unusual debate on the subject last year, the former Member for Truro said:
one is tempted to believe that, although the time-serving part of the apprenticeship system has been abolished, the


skill acquisition side of it has not been introduced to the extent that is needed."—[Official Report, 28 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 753.]
That is the kind of gap we are facing today.
The engineering industry training board told the Select Committee on Employment that it felt that its pleas for more assistance had fallen on deaf ears—the board's words, not mine — and that the various undertakings given by the Government had not gone anywhere near what was needed to put Britain back on course to be able to compete effectively in manufacturing engineering worldwide.
An article in the Financial Times on 20 February began:
British industry's attitude to training remains every bit as vacant as the jobs available for qualified staff.
It went on to quote the secretary of the EITB, Mr. Pennant Jones as saying:
More and more people are trying to fish talent out of a smaller pond.
The Minister will acknowledge that comments such as that, coming from within the EITB, show a real anxiety and crisis. Indeed, the article pointed out that the exemption and the fact that so much of engineering employment was among small companies meant that the levy which the EITB received—because of 92 per cent. of companies in the industry being exempt—amounted to £3 million compared with £160 million.
I am not suggesting that that is anything other than a broad brush indication of the gap. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, the EITB has put forward three alternative proposals for consideration. All of them show that more than that £3 million is needed. Of course tonight's order should be approved, but it should not be approved on the understanding that it addresses the real problem, which remains to be tackled urgently.
I understand that the position was highlighted at a meeting at the beginning of the month between the Secretary of State for Education and Science and representatives from six leading engineering companies in the United Kingdom, including Jaguar, Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace. They told the right hon. Gentleman of their belief that there was still a 60 per cent. shortfall in engineering graduates required, being 1,700 graduates in addition to the 1,700 graduates whom the Government have agreed to fund under the expansion scheme. I can say therefore at this late hour, in a spirit of generosity, that the Government have moved but that they have not moved anything like far or fast enough to meet the requirements of the industry.
I was given today a statistic which, if it is true, is alarming. I am told that South Korea is currently training twice as many engineering students as Britain, Sweden and West Germany combined. If that is the reality, it is an indication of the desperate position we face in the world and of our need for a more urgent response to our skill shortages, and for a better way of overcoming those shortages than the levy we are debating tonight.
It is clear that the employers in the engineering industry are not shouldering their responsibility to train. There is no doubt that the good companies will do the training. They suffer because they train for the companies that do not, and we must move to a system that ensures that the share of the cost of training is even, equal and fair.
I had a meeting recently with the Industrial Society. At that informal exchange of views I was told about the extent to which the Industrial Society is aware of how many companies have simply pulled out of in-house training. I

was told that this was of some benefit for the Industrial Society because it had expanded dramatically, providing services for companies which had previously provided them in-house. On the optimistic side, the Industrial Society said that it noted that there was now a tendency for companies to start to re-establish their training departments. However, I believe that all the evidence shows that there is an enormous gap. Realistically, small companies will not do the training unless they are drawn in under the umbrella of the engineering industry training board.
To return to my earlier point, I do not look back to the good old days of engineering apprenticeships because 1 accept that we have moved on from there. However, I look forward to a time when we shall find a way to train and re-train people that is comparable to what the old scheme achieved, to ensure that we have the skills in the industry that are clearly missing at the moment.
I end by saying that the House should approve the order. However, the Minister should recognise that there is a crisis, especially in the engineering industry, and the Government have not shown the sense of urgency and commitment to solving that crisis that I believe is necessary. As we shall be moving into an election climate sometime in the next few months, it is not good enough for the Government simply to say that they have created the climate which British industry can take advantage of to become competitive in the world if they do not fill the gap and ensure that we have the skills and the means to train and re-train to ensure that we can keep pace with new technology and its application, something which we cannot do now. If the Korean statistics I have quoted are accurate, it is clear that Britain will not end up in the teens, in the league but will fall much further down the list unless we can respond to that. Engineering must be the backbone of our manufacturing industry, and skill training and retraining must be the backbone of the engineering industry.

12. 11 am

Mr. Peter Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade spoke about a consensus. It is true that everyone is in favour of training. Training is a good thing. The Minister was referring to consensus on the modest changes envisaged in the order. There is not much doubt that all hon. Members in the Chamber will give the order a welcome.
However, it would be wrong for my hon. Friend the Minister to assume that that consensus goes beyond the narrow proposals before us to the unquestioning acceptance of the way in which the levy is utilised by the engineering industry training board. He has said that over the next few months there are to be announcements of changes to the levy and exemptions. Those proposals might not receive a consensus as have tonight's proposals. The reason is that there is hesitation among companies—including the high technology companies in my constituency—about whether the sum of £19 million, which is an additional cost of training incurred by the company, is the best and most efficient way of obtaining an increment for training.
It has been suggested that, in practice, the engineering industry training board is not as responsive as we might expect it to be to the ideas, proposals and suggestions of companies. Firms have been responding — until last month — to the consultation document published in November. The three choices given in the document were


of interest and gave cause for concern, but some companies answered the document by saying "Put your own house in order first." Companies have questioned whether the training board is responsive to the demands of the engineering industry today and whether it is capable of looking ahead to the requirements of the industry in future. It should set the pace. While companies are training workers to meet their immediate needs and their needs over the next few months, the industry board could be looking ahead to the requirements of the future.
Some people suggest that the engineering industry training board is administratively top heavy and that what it produces is not as efficient as the type of training provided by the best companies. I do not suggest that we should oppose the order, but I believe that many companies want to be assured that, if there are larger levy increases than those envisaged in the order, and if there are changes in the exemptions during the next few months, the burden on industry—it is already faced with extremely heavy competition in Britain and overseas — will not increase. They want a training system that will be cost-effective and the most efficient that can be devised in this essential industry.

Mr. Max Madden: Hanging over the debate is the spectre of the decline in the engineering and manufacturing industry. The fact that we are discussing it after midnight says a great deal about the way in which the Government, and indeed the country, view engineering and manufacturing. It underlines what many of us suspect—that the Government place greater priority on those who make money than on those who make things. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that we should all be greatly alarmed at the contraction in manufacturing industry, especially engineering. That contraction can clearly be seen in Huddersfield, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison), who is anxiously awaiting the Adjournment debate, and in my city of Bradford, where thousands upon thousands of skilled engineering and textile jobs have been lost in the past 10 to 15 years. There is enormous concern about the loss of skills together with the contraction of Bradford's manufacturing base. There is concern about the deskilling that has occurred. Those who are still in manufacturing industry are very worried about the need for their skills to be constantly improved to meet the challenges of the present and the future.
There is widespread unemployment in Bradford—15 per cent. compared with a national average of 12 per cent., with 28 per cent of those unemployed being out of work for more than two years. In some districts unemployment reaches more than 35 per cent. There are some six unemployed people chasing every job vacancy. Nearly half the unemployed are under 35.
Young people and adults in Bradford and elsewhere want good quality training and genuine job experience. They are wary of many YTS projects and are extremely suspicious about what real training will be available under the job training scheme. Despite the disparaging remarks made about apprenticeships by the hon. Member for

Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who is the spokesman for the alliance, most of my constituents regard apprenticeships as a valuable opportunity of the past.
The picture of training in Bradford has been painted recently in a survey by the vocational, educational and training group of the Manpower Services Commission, which has surveyed more than 200 companies in the city and is providing informantion that is regarded as fundamental to any planning process that seeks to equip young people and adults for the world of work. The covering letter distributed with the survey results states:
It is encouraging to note that 25% of all companies visited expect their staff numbers to increase during the next 12 months. However, of the companies visited, almost a third of employees received training of some kind; this does mean that two-thirds did not, and whilst almost a half of those in managerial grades received training, this again means that a large proportion did not.
The report also highlights likely skill shortages in processing, both metal and non-metal, mainly within larger companies. It identifies, also, a major need for training or future training in computer or computer related skills.
I shall quote briefly from some of the main points made in the survey. On skill shortages and hard-to-fill vacancies it says:
The major area of skill shortage is in non-metal and electrical processing with a particular problem in finding skilled sewing machinists.
On the future use of new technology the survey says:
Although major use of New Technology is still likely to be in information handling it is worth noting the relatively high number of companies likely to be introducing NT in Manufacture and Design. This includes CNC machines in Textiles and CAD/CAM in drawing offices.
Of 121 companies likely to introduce new or further NT 11 thought this could create new jobs whilst 13 expected job losses as a result. All the other companies expected no change.
On training needs in new technology it says:
There is however a significant number of non-clerical workers requiring training including Computer Aided Design in draughting, CNC machines in both engineering and textiles and the use of computer aided point-of-scale systems in retail distribution.
If the decline in manufacturing industry in my city and elsewhere is to be reversed, if the service sector and employment in it is to be sustained, training and retraining are vital. We need a comprehensive national training programme if men and women are to be brought back into work or into work for the first time.
As I said earlier, this Government have, regrettably, presided over the collapse of good training and the next Labour Government are awaited to repair that damage. It is difficult for us in Bradford to appreciate the priority that the Minister says his Government attach to the need for graduates, when in recent years we have seen significant cuts in the funds for Bradford university and the cuts that Aston and Salford have also suffered.
It is difficult for us to believe that the Government place a high priority on young people who require the skills that Britain will desperately need in future. The Government suggested establishing city technology colleges in cities such as Bradford and Leeds. I gather that there is now considerable uncertainty about whether those colleges will proceed. Certainly, they would cream off the most able young people and the most able teachers, and would be thoroughly unwelcome developments in Bradford and Leeds.
One in five of my constituents is unemployed and desperately anxious to obtain employment. Those people know that their chances will be enhanced if they have


training, skills and experience. I would welcome the Minister's comments on this survey by the Manpower Services Commission. I assume that it has been passed to him and I would appreciate any information that he can give about what will be done in Bradford to enable the two thirds of its people who are in employment to obtain the training that they are currently denied. I should like to know what will be done to give those people who are desperately seeking employment the opportunity to secure good training that will improve their prospects for employment, either for the first time or after a long period of unemployment, during which they have wasted their skills, talent and enthusiasm on the dole.

Mr. Trippier: I shall ignore for a moment the vitriol in the uncharacteristic speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). I was flattered to hear him say that historians would read my speech in years to come. No one has ever been so kind to me in any debate. I thank him for that, and I hope that they do. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has finally decided to line up behind the board's efforts to increase training in the industry. He and his colleagues in the official Opposition have been treading a rather difficult path of late. They have wanted to blame someone for the skill shortages in engineering, but they have also wanted to maintain the ITB system as whole as the way forward. They cannot have it both ways. I made that point to him on numerous occasions at Question Time.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that morale was low within the board and among the staff of the ITB—he really must stop reading The Guardian. It is not true. Morale is not low on the board, and certainly not low among the staff, which is enthusiastic and keen to be involved in the important work of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. It is keen to develop engineering training schemes under YTS and to play a significant part in it. It is getting more and more involved in these and other initiatives that we are introducing. One has only to speak to the people in the ITB who were involved in last year's "Winning Margin" conference to find out that what I am saying is fact and not hypothesis.
The Government will always try to respond positively to constructive suggestions made by the board—that is the way that the system works. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), in his effective contribution, made the point that we have to have consensus. We have consensus on the order today, but the board must have consensus within it, and the hon. Member for Huddersfield knows that well. It is a tripartite board, and the three questions that have been put in the form of a consultation exercise by the board to the industry and to trade unions, but not at this stage to Government —1 emphasise that again—are seeking to address the problem that all hon. Members would agree are those confronting the engineering industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North is right to say that when the board decides to bring its conclusions to the MSC and ultimately to Ministers, we must have a consensus within the industry. That important point was lost in the contributions from the Opposition Benches.
I find it incredible that Opposition Members feel able to criticise the Government's training record, given how well it compares with that of the Labour Government. We have more than doubled our expenditure since we took

office, and it is now running at £1·5 billion a year. Raising the skill level of the work force is vital if our industries are to compete in a world of rapidly changing technologies and markets. That is why vocational training and education measures are central to our economic strategy.

Mr. Madden: What about JTS?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman is out of step with what his party is saying about that, because it has changed its tune. I hope that he has time to read the new, official Labour proposals, which came out yesterday. I do not seek to rubbish them because some of them seem remarkably like those that we have recently introduced for the job training scheme. Some are exactly the same.
Our introduction of the JTS is not due to complacency. It is not a sign of complacency that we have tackled the problems that arose because schools were not equipping children for employment. We have introduced TVEI. I suppose nobody in the Labour party has thought of knocking that. We shall be spending £900 million on that over the next 10 years. We introduced first the YTS and now two-year YTS. That is not complacency. Young people are now entering the labour market with a sounder foundation of initial training than ever before. We are encouraging the reform of apprenticeship training and doing away with age limits and time-serving, and. supporting apprentices through YTS.
The official Opposition seem keen on traditional apprenticeships. I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), that things have changed considerably over the last few years. The Labour party is always bemoaning the decline of traditional apprenticeships and we heard it again from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Luckily, an increasing number of trade union leaders — Clive Jenkins and Eric Hammond come to mind — are more enlightened. The other day, Eric Hammond said:
Others will continue to cry crocodile tears over the plight of young people, but keep archaic, unused apprenticeship agreements intact.
We are contributing directly to skill supply through adult training programmes such as the new JTS, which will help up to 250,000 unemployed people per year to train in the skills that industry needs. We are widening access 1 o training through the Open College, training access points and career development loans.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield asked what role the Government were playing in that, in addition to the support that they are giving to the board. That is the question that I am now addressing, apart from the first question that he asked about low morale. We are seeking to create the right framework for cost-effective training investment by employers and individuals by reforming the qualifications structure. That is not complacency. We are promoting collaboration between employers and training providers by the development of more cost-effective methods such as open learning and by providing better information on training needs and provision.
All the measures that I have mentioned directly address the central issue, on which we all seem to agree, that many British employers do not do enough training. They do not recognise that it should be regarded as an investment. Most of them regard it as a cost. Laying the foundations of initial training for new entrants to the work force is the most effective strategy that can be introduced for encouraging employers to take on young people and train


and update them through their working lives, since it gives them a basis on which they can build cheaply and cost-effectively. We do not stop there.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister answer the central point that hon. Members have asked, about how much is spent on training people in the work force? The Minister has given us a catalogue of income support measures for unemployed people. Most of the money is spent on income support, not training. The Government have spent a little on training, but almost none on training people in work. Will the Minister answer that?

Mr. Trippier: That is the point that I was seeking to make earlier. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The Government responded positively—I assume the hon. Gentleman agrees with that—in retaining the statutory training boards for certain industries because the employers wanted to keep them. If we have a system such as that, they should be responsible for training in that industry and, as I have already said, we respond positively to the constructive suggestions that they make to us. That is the system that we have supported and the hon. Gentleman cannot knock it. It is working.
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the statutory board system is not working effectively, what does the Opposition propose to do with statutory training boards? I thought that the hon. Gentleman supported them. The statutory training board has been responsible for training in the engineering industry, and it is up to it to deal with the problems of skill shortages, which all hon. Members have identified in their speeches this evening. It has to identify them and deal with them effectively through consensus.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) drew the attention of the House to another problem. We recognise the challenge that is posed to employers by new and high technologies and our work force must be skilled in those if we shall compete in world markets. Some £30 million of the MSC's adult training expenditure is in that high technology sector. That is a good example of training that we are giving to people who are already in the work force. Examples include the leading edge technology programme, in which the vast majority of the courses funded are in information technology skills. There are local collaborative projects in software engineering, OpenTech packages and electronics. We also spend £43 million under the Switch programme to provide extra places in higher education on courses in engineering and technology.
Labour Members are fond of talking about skill shortages, but they are now far less severe than they were

when we took office. In 1979 over 15 per cent. of manufacturing firms were expecting output to be constrained by shortages of skilled labour, but now the figure is 9 per cent.
What is the Opposition's proposed solution to the problems? I find it difficult to comment on that on the basis of the document entitled "New jobs for Britain" which they published yesterday, which seems to have been eclipsed by certain other matters which have arisen both in the House and outside. From what I have seen so far, the proposal for training places looks remarkably like the Government's policies which have already been implemented. One would be hard-pressed to spot the divide. But we are a little confused and we hope that that confusion will be cleared up when the final package comes forward next week.
We want to know whether the 300,000 training places referred to in that document are in addition to the 300,000 young people and 300,000 adults whom we are already training, or whether they are in place of them. If they are in addition to, I can only welcome the fact that the Labour party has suddenly recognised the value of our policies and seeks to build constructively on them. If they are instead of, I can only say that I am sorry that it is proposing to cut training provision in half.
What about mobilising employers' contribution to training? Again, I cannot wait to see the removal of the veils. Have the Opposition abandoned the solution preferred by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) of bringing back all the industrial training boards or replicating the ITB system across industry, trade and commerce? Have they abandoned their proposal for a 1 per cent. levy? That has been said, but it has not been said again today. It was not mentioned yesterday. Will that be referred to in the document? What will the 1 per cent. be on? Will it be on turnover, payroll, or what? That would act as a significant brake on enterprise — an increase of 15 percentage points in corporation tax.
Do the Opposition propose to hide behind the Manpower Services Commission's forthcoming study, as they seem to have suggested in their document yesterday? If that is the Opposition's alternative, I do not see how the House can do anything other than support us in our policies on training in the engineering industry and in industry as a whole. I recommend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.

County Hall, Wakefield

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Portillo.]

Mr. Walter Harrison: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I have had a long wait, but I sincerely hope that we shall gain some benefit from the debate. You may recall that on 4 March I waited a long time to intervene on this same subject, the use of county hall, but on that occasion we were discussing county hall, London.
Under question 14, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), whose constituency is 400 miles away, was given the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he had had about the continued use of county hall for the London marathon. I waited for a long time hoping to ask the same type of question. I live only two miles away from county hall in Wakefield, but I thought that if a Scotsman could ask a question about a building 400 miles away, I would be entitled to ask a question, living as I do only two miles away.
Time has gone slowly tonight. I have waited five hours. I was told that we would quickly reach the Adjournment debate. But last week, tempus fugit. It flew quickly. After rising to my feet twice, Mr. Speaker said to me, "Bad luck". He drew my attention to the fact that it was 3.31 and then terminated questions. I saw a broad smile come across the faces of the two Environment Ministers. I know that they were pleased that I had got the chop.
However, my fortunes turned because, having applied for an Adjournment debate, I was quickly told that I had been lucky. Instead of bad luck, I had good luck. However, at this time of night I doubt whether I was lucky to get the Adjournment.
When I left the Chamber, having got the information about the Adjournment debate, with my usual warmth and affection for Government Ministers, I said, "Hello, Chris. How's things?" Chris replied, "All right. We have got a debate next Thursday; I am looking forward to it." I said, "So am I", and here we are tonight. That is where the mutual admiration society finishes— it had only a short life. I am here to argue an absolutely different point of view from that of the Minister. The mutual admiration society that the Under-Secretary and I were going to form has terminated already.
What have I found out? On Sunday, in a newspaper proscribed by some people, I read the headline:
Ridley urges sell off.
It stated:
A new crackdown on local councils holding large amounts of assets was signalled yesterday by Nicholas Ridley, the Environment Secretary. Ridley indicated that a future Conservative Government would take steps to encourage councils to sell assets, such as land or property, to the private sector.
The Secretary of State and his predecessor took positive steps regarding county hall in Wakefield. I have made representations and led delegations because I am concerned about that marvellous building. It is one of the finest buildings in the country. It was purpose built in 1888 after the county council decided to build its own residence. At that time, the council resided in Wakefield city town hall. However, in the space of four years, it built a marvellous edifice which was officially opened in 1898.
The building has terrific historic value. The stone work, the staircase, the carpeting, furniture and panelling were purpose built for the local authority. The standard of county hall is above that of the Palace of Westminster.
What has happened? From the representations and discussions that I have had, I believe that I have been misled on certain occasions. When I met the Under-Secretary I was told that the decision to sell off Wakefield county hall was the responsibility of the residuary body. However, when I visited the residuary body I was told that the responsibility lay with the Minister. I was used like a ping pong.
Having been so misled, I shall continue with my strong representation that county hall should stay with the Wakefield metropolitan district council and remain a public body building. It should not be sold off for use as a hotel, casino, dance hall or bingo hall. It should retain the dignity of the purpose for which it was built. In other words, it should be used for local government.
If the Wakefield metropolitan district council arid the police authority, which was in the West Riding, were to remain with the Wakefield metropolitan borough council, millions of pounds would be saved. The local authority is short of accommodation because of the additional duties that it has to perform following abolition. The police authority is stretched. Indeed, for several years it was told that it could have £30 million worth of new headquarters. Consideration was then given to refurbishment, which would have cost £8·5 million. If the police authority were committed to have the education block by arrangement and by package deals and the local authority were to have the county accommodation, at least £6 million or £7 million would be saved immediately.
When I referred this matter to the Home Secretary, my questions were directed to the Department of the Environment. The DoE referred me to the residuary body. When that body has gone to the highest bidder, I hope that the Minister will intervene—I trust that he will assure me this evening that he will do so—and take into consideration all the issues that are involved, instead of concentrating on the highest bidder, who will make a. quick buck. It is probable that he will try to rent the property to the local authority and the police, as others have tried to do in the past with other properties. I appeal to the Minister to assure me that he will take into consideration all the issues and ensure that there is proper consultation.
On 1 January 1988, I want to march from the town hall to county hall to reoccupy the magnificent building that I have described. That is the day on which the residuary body says that it can be taken over. The police band should take that route and the WMBC supporters. We want properly to reoccupy county hall.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) for raising the issue and for the way in which he has put his case. It is not a new one. We have discussed it on a previous occasion. I hope that he is appreciative of the fact that I can respond to the debate as I could not during Question Time, when he sought to raise the matter. I now have a little more time in which to explain the background to the matter and what is likely to happen in future
The responsibility for the future of county hall rests primarily with the residuary body—one of the residuary bodies that were set up under the Local Government Act 1985. The residuary bodies were established to wind up the outstanding affairs of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. The property of the abolished councils transferred either to functional successors or to residuary bodies. County hall, Wakefield, has no relevance in terms of transferred functional responsibilities, and therefore quite properly passed into the ownership of the residuary body. It therefore falls to the residuary body to decide just how the building should be disposed of, within the general property guidelines issued by the Department of the Environment.
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, at his request, I met the chairman of the West Yorkshire residuary body last October to discuss the issue. At that meeting, I explained that I expected the residuary body to consider all of the options open for the future of county hall and that, in doing so, they should be aware of their fiduciary duty to all of the ratepayers of the former county council area. I also stressed that, in considering all of the options, the residuary body should properly consider opportunities for disposal on the open market. I also made it clear to the chairman that any disposal to Wakefield metropolitan district council or some other public body should be for value — that is to say, a fair market price — to take account of the interests of the ratepayers of the abolished authority as a whole.
The right hon. Gentleman will recognise the fact that the points that I made at that meeting were entirely in line with the general property guidelines issued to the residuary bodies, a copy of which was placed in the Library last August. I am pleased to say that the chairman of the residuary body was in full accord with me on those points, and I am content that he and his fellow members are acting entirely within the framework laid down by the guidelines. Indeed, I should take this opportunity to put on record my appreciation of the way in which all of the members of the West Yorkshire residuary body have so conscientiously discharged their responsibilities.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of Wakefield metropolitan district council or the West Yorkshire police authority acquiring county hall. I understand that both bodies have submitted bids to take over the property, and I am sure that these bids will be considered on their merits, alongside any other bids that are received. However, I am informed that neither bid takes the form of a firm monetary offer for the building. I remain of the view that any transfer within the public sector must be on a value basis. It should be borne in mind that county hall belonged to all of the ratepayers of the former county council area—not just to those of one district—and the residuary body has a duty to all of those ratepayers. Only by ensuring that any disposal is on a cash basis and that the proceeds are then distributed to all five district councils in west Yorkshire can the residuary body adequately discharge that responsibility.
It has been suggested that, under the present arrangements for the distribution of proceeds from the sale of residuary body property, Leeds and Bradford district councils would benefit most from the sale of county hall. It has also been suggested that the proceeds from such a sale should be distributed between Wakefield, Calderdale

and Kirklees, who originally paid for the building. The general principle that has been followed is that the financial benefits and liabilities inherited from the county councils should be distributed to the districts in each county, pro rata to population. This applies to both inherited money and to receipts arising from property sales. Orders giving effect to this principle have already been made.
The liability for any debt outstanding in respect of county hall falls countywide. It is fair that the benefits from its disposal should do so, too. There is no case for treating county hall—or any proceeds arising from its sale—any differently from the other assets or liabilities that the residuary body has inherited.
While mentioning the bids received from Wakefield metropolitan district council and the police authority, I should say that the residuary body has been scrupulous in ensuring that both local Members of Parliament and councillors have been kept fully informed of all developments. I know that the residuary body chairman has had a number of meetings with hon. Members and councillors. Indeed, I understand that he met the leader of Wakefield metropolitan district council only yesterday afternoon.
It is right to pay tribute to the work of the residuary body and to acknowledge the success so far. West Yorkshire residuary body has the largest property portfolio outside London. It is to its credit that it has so quickly got to grips with the task of sorting out the records— transferring the appropriate records to the district councils and joint authorities as it proceeded — and bringing forward for sale as much surplus property as it has been able. I am informed that, to date, it has realised £2·8 million from the sales. This money will eventually be distributed among the five district councils in west Yorkshire and will benefit ali of the ratepayers of the area. If we had acceded to the right hon. Member's requests for all of the surplus property of the county council to be transferred to the district councils, the ratepayers would not have received this benefit.
The residuary body has also done an excellent job in winding up the financial affairs of the county council and in closing the accounts for 1985–86. Both of these tasks were completed quickly. In addition, the residuary body has been responsible for calculating and paying both redundancy payments and detriment payments to former county council staff. Again these tasks were performed scrupulously and swiftly.
I should make one final comment on the role and accountability of the residuary bodies. The residuary bodies are properly accountable. The members of the residuary bodies are appointed by and are accountable to the Secretary of State who, in his turn, is accountable to Parliament. I am therefore content that the residuary bodies are properly and fully accountable for all their actions.
As I have said, I am satisfied that any offers received from Wakefield metropolitan district council, the police authority or any other public sector body will be considered on their merits. But many other expressions of interest have also been received. I am informed that there have been some 60 inquiries to date, and it is quite right that all these should be followed up to ensure that the best possible deal is obtained for the ratepayers.
I understand that some of the inquiries received are on the basis of possible use for hotel or residential


development. If these inquiries are to come to fruition, they could be the subject of planning appeals. Therefore, it would be wrong of me to comment on specific suggestions. However, I must record my strong belief that the residuary body should consider seriously all the various possibilities for both private and public sector investment in this building. Over the years, Wakefield's economy has been over-dependent on local government employment and it would benefit from the boost of additional private sector employment.
I have visited this fine building and it could possibly be used by the private sector. However, it is open to Wakefield council to purchase the building. I understand that it has the resources with which to do so, if it places a sufficiently high priority on that objective. Recent press cuttings suggest that Wakefield will be taking £9·5 million from its reserves for its 1987–88 budget and that it is spending £5·5 million on new leisure facilities. That is evidence of the ability of Wakefield council to incur high expenditure. If the council wants to put in a good bid for this building, it will be able to do so. All other things being equal, if Wakefield's bid is the highest it will get county hall for its own purposes.
There is nothing to prevent Wakefield from negotiating with the police authority over dual use. I am unable to comment on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that particularly large savings could be made from a deal involving the police authority and the education authority, but I understand that the West Yorkshire police authority would like to purchase the premises of the education department at No. 8 Bond street at a cost of £725,000. However, that purchase would depend upon Wakefield council obtaining county hall.
The West Yorkshire police authority argues that if it obtained the education department's premises it would permit the early centralisation of a number of police headquarters departments and the surrender of unsuitable accommodation in other parts of Wakefield. Furthermore, the proposed redevelopment of the existing police force headquarters would no longer be necessary. The West Yorkshire police authority's preliminary estimate of the proposed redevelopment of the force headquarters is £8 million and phase 1 is expected to cost about £2 million. Estimates have not yet been submitted to the Home Office, but if there is to be a beneficial financial deal involving the police authority's use of the education department's premises, it will be taken into account by those who are considering the bids for county hall.
The right hon. Gentleman implied that there was a threat to this fine building. The fact that it is a grade I listed building is a guarantee that it will not be vandalised. Anyone thinking of purchasing the building would have to take into account the fact that it is a listed building. The fine panelling and other accoutrements to which the right hon. Gentleman referred will have to be retained by any purchaser.
I have been to see the building. It is a fine building for which the right hon. Gentleman rightly has great affection. He becomes emotional about it because he is attached to it, but there is no reason to suppose that the building will be in jeopardy because of the actions of the residuary body in seeking to dispose of it, with the sale being of benefit to all the ratepayers in the former county area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock.